I find the color reproduction of the 1dx much better than the 5d iii. It's definitely my favorite.
As for the one who said if you can't get a good photo with a 450d and good glass you're not a good photographer.... Try shooting a gig with one. And see just how good ISO 1600 is on it
I was that one.
You see I was responding to a blanket statement, so I responded in kind.
And yeah, whilst a 450D wouldn't be my automatic choice for gig photography but with a fast lens and careful post-processing I'd get usable results. Funnily enough I remember folk shooting gigs on the first 1D's and 10D's when that was the best available... and getting decent enough results for newspapers and magazines.
But thats a very specific situation, and that wasn't the spirit of the very bold statement that...
I don't think the 450D can produce a good image no matter what lens or conditions you have.
So lets leave aside gig photography, do you really agree Ewinter with Kwanon, that a 450D can't produce a good image under any circumstances? I'm not asking if there was anything better at the time, or anything better since, just simply do you agree with Kwanon's statement?
I don't agree you can't get a good photo with one. I actually started with one of these, it has a place in my heart.
I preferred its color rendition over the 7d, but as far as features go its rudimentary.
I personally think the rebel line get slated for a lot, due to the large amount of bad images produced with them out there.
It's a lot of people's first dslr; it's not the cameras fault they don't know yet. And they often dont understand the limits of their gear, and how to work around them (or when to give up)