« on: November 07, 2013, 07:06:23 AM »
I want to upgrade my camera which is 5D markii.
For those of you who have tried both the Canon 1DX and 5D MKIII,
1. how do they compare to each other?
2. How do they compare in image quality?(Especially under ISO 50 and 100)
3. Do you think that it's worth getting the 1DX over the 5D MKIII if I mostly do a lot of landscape shots and sometime shoot birds?
(1) They are completely different.
(2) Don't know- pretty rare for me to be at 100. But, in actual use, the 1DX has far more latitude in producing totally useable files over ISO 4000 right out of the camera. The noise looks nicer and cleans up easier. Even at A3+ size prints, you may not have do do anything special. For me, more latitude without using a flash is a big deal.
(3) There are so many variables that there is no one correct answer. I suspect there are many people that will only take pictures at ISO 100 and others that do not. There is a great deal of skill in capturing great bird photos and you do not need a 5DIII or 1DX to do it (certainly, lots of great bird images were taken without either camera)- but either may help. Note- I do not yet posess the skills to take great bird pictures. There is a list of stuff on a spec sheet and there is the stuff that happens in real life when using the equipment. There seems to be an awful lot of pixel peeping going on- my 5D2 produced images that I never would have imagined from plain old 35mm film, when 4x6 prints were an upgrade. Seems to be an awful lot of fixation on the details that can be extracted from dark areas in a picture/file. I don't get that, either. To each their own*. That said, if you flub a picture and want to try and recover it a bit, there is more latitude in 1DX files.
In short, if the 5DIII is a 9 or 10 on the volume knob, the 1DX goes to 11. Certainly worth it if it is on your list.
*So, how many people pushing shadows on a computer had the darkroom equipment to do the same thing?