April 20, 2014, 04:09:12 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 ... 115 116 [117] 118 119 ... 162
1741
I don't think the 1D X is underexposing. I think that the 5D3 is programmed to slightly overexpose in order to force everyone to use the ETTR technique to "boost" the perceived image quality.

Exactly like other have reported, my 1D X meters about 1/2 stop faster (shorter exposure time) than my 5D3. However, the result is a histogram that is dead center. For instance, take a photo of a low-contrast subject like a frame filled with green grass. You should get a peak smack dab in the middle of the screen when looking at the histogram.



I agree totally - I was under the impression that my 1DX was underexposing every shot I took by about half a stop but in fact it was perfectly exposing to the nth degree - not aesthetically pleasing but there are no blown highlights anywhere.

Got ya.  I saw this this evening while shooting a church with whites blown out by the evening sun (very harsh).  5D3 and 1D4 had a bit of purple fringing along white edges, 1DX did not.  Also on a landscape shot it did the same thing.  The 5D3 and 1D4 blew out the highlight, but the 1DX didn't and the distant house looked much sharper.

1742
Mate, I owned 2x5d3's and now a 1DX - there are massive differences in performance and IQ.

For one there is no rainbow noise in the low isos and 12K on the 5d3 is about the same as 40K on the 1DX (with better looking noise and no rainbow effect)

In good light there is no-competition in the af between 2 bodies - the 5d3 is fast - the 1dx is instant.

There is no slow down in af when in body processing is turned on or the battery levels go below 40% like on the 5D3 - the slow down in having focus priority for servo turns 5 fps to 3 - no hit on fps on the 1dx (3 cpus make sure of that)

The facial tracking and light meter on the 1DX is something else - it truly lives up to its 1Series designation.

I don't care for video so cant give input there.

Now the drawback is there is a bug with the AF on the 1DX (and it may extend to the 5D3) when shooting with the servo in low light - see my post http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7820.0 which I am working with Canon in isolating. But setting the fps to 10 or lower - fixes 90% of the problem.

I don't own the 5d3's anymore - for Me anything above iso 400 isn't worth using, way too much pattern noise, and 3fps is useless to Me. I will be buying another 1DX shortly if Canon fix this bug.


What are you shooting?  I don't notice any difference at all in metering or IQ.  In fact, the 1DX out of camera looks a bit underexposed to me.  Could just be me though, but IQ?  No way.  You just want to see improvement in IQ, so you see it.  It's human nature.  Massive differences?  What rainbow effect?  I've been shooting two 5D Mark III's as well, since April and I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry.  ISO noise about 400???? Wow, did you get bad copies?

1743
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X ISO Shots
« on: July 30, 2012, 11:17:36 PM »
To add on, I don't think Canon intended there to be a huge difference between the 5D3 and 1DX.  I can appreciate the strengths of both.  I think the real comparison would be the 1DX vs. 1D4, which the 1DX was intended to replace.  I'd be really disappointed in Canon if the 1DX blew the 5D3 out of the water with regards to color, metering, and IQ.  What you are paying for primarily is the speed.  If I wanted AF-point spot metering I would have just kept using my 1D Mark IV.  Since I'm doing college sports this year, I'd like the speed.  Just as a disclaimer, that's the reason I personally bought the 1DX.  I knew going in the IQ was not better than the 5D3, and it isn't.  I agree that if you don't need the speed and AF-point spot metering, you really would have wasted your money over a 5D3.  If you need the exceptional speed and want to enjoy 1Ds3 or 5D3 IQ, it's the way to go.  You have to decide if the extra speed is worth double the price.

We'll find out however, with more testing.

1744
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X ISO Shots
« on: July 30, 2012, 08:49:42 PM »
I would say there is marginally less noise in the 1D X, but nothing to really use as a reason for going with the 1D X and only visible side by side. However, to me, the colour reproduction is better in the 1D X, as the MkIII has a slight yellow tinge. Again though, that would be easy to correct and could be done with a preset to save time. Most probably wouldn't benefit from the 1D X, but those that need the features (e.g. weather sealing, speed etc.) would happily pay the extra. AF accuracy may be similar, but the reported increased AF/tracking speed of the 1D X could be the difference in getting the shot, which alone would be worth the extra to pros that have to rely on it to get the shot.

Basically, the 1DX is a speed demon. 12 FPS and unsurpassed autofocus performance.

There are quite a number of other differences between the 1DX and the 5DIII, but none of them are any more significant to real-world shooting than the noise difference we see here.

Unless the 6 FPS of the 5DIII isn't fast enough for what you're doing, there's no reason to spend thousands more on the 1DX. But there are those for whom 6 FPS is painfully, unusably slow, and their biggest problem right now is wiping the drool off the back of their sniny new 1DXs.

I'm just wondering when we'll see the 1DXXX with its 24 FPS framerate and buffer limited only by card space...imagine what the cinematographers will do with that!

Cheers,

b&

Exactly.  I think the IQ and ISO is similar, the next logical thing to do would be to take some low light action, or just any sports for that matter.  Unfortunately my first football game isn't until late August.  But that really is where things will show up.  Low-light, real photography, with action.  I'm guessing these photos will show the advances of the 1D X.  I have a night football game in late August, but that's the best I can do for low-light sports, and the soonest.  If I can find a sports event soon, I will.  I am going to a car show this weekend.  I will shoot the car show with both cameras and process in post as normal, everything business as usual, no RAW files being posted, and do a real-world comparison.  I think that would be the next most meaningful step.

1745
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX, 1D4, 5D3 outdoor church shots
« on: July 30, 2012, 07:18:26 PM »
Finally, very basic post-processing with spot-metering off the shadow side of the church.  The 1D4 did a better job than the 3 in metering here, IMO.  Again, very basic processing and if you are interested in the RAW files, please ask.  I definitely, if I were shooting for real, would have chosen a different time of the day looking at the glare and purple fringing from the highlights.  Maybe upwards of 2 hours later.

1746
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX, 1D4, 5D3 outdoor church shots
« on: July 30, 2012, 06:55:12 PM »
The only thing I noticed here, at low ISO, was the color rendition and differing of metering among the 3 cameras.  The question is whether someone, in post, could end up with a much better photo of one vs. the other and to me it doesn't look to be so.  I can't tell any difference out of the camera with these shots.  The real story would probably be at much higher ISO values, trying to retrieve shadow detail.

By the way, the shutter on the 1D X is simply amazing.  Solid, sturdy, and FAST.  It doesn't vibrate the camera like the 5D3 and 1D4; there is literally no shock movement.

1747
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX, 1D4, 5D3 outdoor church shots
« on: July 30, 2012, 06:50:55 PM »
Here are ISO 2000 (1DX and 5D3) and 5000 (1D4).

1748
EOS Bodies - For Stills / 1DX, 1D4, 5D3 outdoor church shots
« on: July 30, 2012, 06:49:21 PM »
I did the 1DX, 1D4, and 5D3 shots of a church this evening.  I did nothing to the photos except crop to the church, as I was using a tripod.  I shot at f/8, 24mm, and used Center Weighted Average on the highlight on the face of the church.  The 1D4 I ran out of room, sorry.  I took two shots, one at ISO 100, and another as high of an ISO I could go.  Note the metering is different, as at ISO 2000, f/8, the 1DX and 5D3 give different shutter speeds to achieve the same exposure.

1749
Hey guys, maybe some insight here, maybe a good deal for someone, not sure. I purchased a 5DM3 kit at B&H on March 30, in that time I have been waiting for the mixed accessories to become available, as I typically shoot off a tripod (Using RRS brackets...Not yet available) and use a remote flash (New ST-E3-RT + 600EX's) and have just got to the season where we can do the photography that I purchased the camera for, night time tarpon fishing. We have tested the 5DM3, as it is a marvelous camera for daytime shooting, it is not delivering the results we hoped for, especially in the area of AF and IQ. When shooting at night, ISO is a big factor, and both cameras (based on results I have seen) appear to be the same, but the actual ability for the camera to focus and do it quickly, for what we are shooting, which you have a split second reaction time to capture the moment, is failing. I contacted B&H today, and they were not able to help me, in either a return or exchange, so I am asking here, if anyone has any insight on how I can deal with this (Minus just buying a 1DX on top of what I have already spent). I asked them if they could work with me, as since 3/30 i had spent $23,000 in their shop. They said it had been too long, nothing they could do. I would be more than willing to part with my equipment for a discounted price, so that I can efficiently make the needed upgrade. I am really up against a wall here as I desperately need the right tool for the job. Can anyone shed some light on this doom situation I have? Thanks in advance!

After having used both cameras, I think you'll be disappointed, or not as satisfied as you think you're going to be.  The IQ is marginally better, ISO is marginally better, however AF is much better, and of course the fps, spot-linked metering, and weather build.  But as for not delivering in IQ, if the 5D3 can't meet your IQ results, I'm afraid the 1DX won't either then.  Overall they are two different cameras and people are erroneously purchasing one when they need the other.  I shoot weddings and sports.  Why not have both?  If I only had the sports contract though, I'd still get both because the 5D Mark III is a much better sports backup then even the 1D Mark IV.  The 5D3 definitely has an IQ advantage there.

1750
EOS Bodies / Re: Mark III price dropping
« on: July 30, 2012, 04:47:10 PM »
I was all set to buy the 5DIII from B&H for $3350, but it's back to $3500 now for some reason. Amazon is back to $3500 now too. What gives? I'm definitely not buying it without the warranty. Anybody know another place to get it for around the $3350 mark that is authorized by Canon?

$3350 vs. $3500.  That $150 concern will be dispelled quickly once you begin shooting with your 5D Mark III.  I guarantee it (just like the guy on the Burlington Coat Factory commercial).

Isn't the commercial you are referring to The Men's Warehouse? "You're gonna like the way you look, I guarantee it!"

I may be wrong.

Yes, sorry.  Wrong reference.

1751
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX vs 5D3
« on: July 30, 2012, 04:43:34 PM »
How's the wakeup time compared to the 5d3? I'm still very annoyed and puzzled the 5d needs a week to wake up...

Super fast.  I haven't found anything I didn't like yet with this camera.  You turn it on, you start shooting.

1752
EOS Bodies / Re: Mark III price dropping
« on: July 30, 2012, 03:40:02 PM »
Doesn't matter where you buy, it's still an inventory unit produced by Canon.  They get their markup from the
initial sale to a distributor, to a dealer or direct channel (where they get the dealer's share also).  The pricing
on the 5DMkIII is Canon's call - but a Nikon 800 at $2999 is appealing to a number of current Canon  users.
As Canon releases more MarkII lenses with a 100% price increase from the "older" models - buying all new
lenses for an 800 is not as terrifying as it once was (and still is!),

IMO a camera has to be appealing for certain reasons, not necessarily price.  If I was just shooting portraits or landscapes then yes, the 800 would be appealing.  Take the 5dIII, it's appeal for me is all about the AF, high ISO, FPS, crunching power, etc.  People will argue that it's $500 more.  That's true but the cameras are not the same.  Comparing the features, the 5DIII is worth the extra 500 bucks, and for my needs it's a better all-round camera.

+1

1753
It shouldn't be doing it when the camera is powering up, although normally when it's powered off (by the switch, not always when it does it automatic timeout shutdown) it should perform the self-cleaning.

It should do it both powering up and down.  Every Canon DSLR I've owned has done it that way.

1754
Could you also take a RAW image of the church from each camera? It'd be great to dig into it.

By the way, I'm going to raise the shutter speed on another set of the church shots and shoot at high ISO as well.  I'll take an appropriate shot at f/8, and maybe, oh 1/100s at ISO 400ish.  Then I'm going to raise the shutter a few stops and shoot at ISO 6400, 12800, 25600, 51200.  This way I can look at shadow noise, which I haven't been able to show yet.  I also want to see how high ISO can affect a normal image outside and how well you can clean it up.  If 1DX and 5D3 perform similarly, perhaps those aren't the two cameras we should be comparing, but rather the 1DX vs. 1D4.  I will totally expect the 5D3 to perform similarly regarding IQ, but not the same in metering, color, and noise patterns.  I'd be okay with this, because then in a sense you have 5D3 IQ in a 1D4 body, which is spectacular.

1755
Good point.

Even the landscape shots are darker.  Before I imported as JPEG to this site, I had to slide the exposure bar to the right +0.50.  The 1D4 I didn't touch; it was right on.  The 5D3 was a tad darker than the 1D4, but not nearly as much as the 1DX.  I did center-weighted average metering 5 feet in front of my camera, on the ground, and then I did center-weighted on the sky just above the horizon.  Same thing for all 3 cameras.

This confirms my theory that the 1Ds3 and 1D4 metering was exceptionally accurate.  Of course, accuracy is actually subjective here, but it was noticeable to me when I looked at the photos.

Pages: 1 ... 115 116 [117] 118 119 ... 162