Canon 1DX vs 5DIII Wildlife Comparison

[jrista]

Yes I agree.  These are not the best exposed images.  As I said the lighting was awful and the shot with the 5DIII it had just started sleeting.  It was overexposed by about 2 stops already.  The 1DX was exposed about 1 stop over.  I tried to find a couple of shots that were challenging in comparison. 

I am not sure I would use the word "overexposed", if I understand what you are getting at. If you are referring to the EC scale in the viewfinder that the camera meter updates, then I would say the meter gravely MISS-METERED those images. Keep in mind, the camera meter is rather dumb...it generally aims for an ~18% gray average tone. Given the sky in those photos, the meter was actually underexposing. I would actually say it probably under-exposed by two to three full stops!

We have exposure compensation for a reason, and if we have to boost exposure with EC, then that does not mean we are over exposing....it means we are correcting the meters incorrect automatic exposure settings. I would have happily blown the sky in those images entirely, if it allowed me to get better exposure on the eagle itself. I'd have pushed exposure as far as I could, to the point where the feathers of the eagles head were in the 240 RGB range, then corrected DOWN in post. By literally over-exposing, then pushing exposure down in post, you actually mitigate noise. I have some examples of this with a dragonfly I photographed a while back...I accidentally overexposed the original shots by some three stops, and corrected in post. Compared to the later shots, the corrected ones that were overexposed had almost zero visible noise, while one that was "correctly" exposed in camera had a plenty of visible noise. I'll see if I can dig those up.

Noise is not actually caused by high ISO...it is caused by too little light. The ISO setting simply changes the readout whitepoint, which intrinsically limits the maximum exposure level. If you push to ISO 1000, but then expose such that your whites are below an RGB value of 200...you are simply exacerbating the problem of not having enough light. If you cannot use a longer shutter speed, then the best way to maximize exposure is to increase ISO. It doesn't get any more light down the lens, but it reads out the exposure you have in the least-noisy way. Higher in-camera ISO will almost always trump post-process exposure push. Pushing a noisy exposure in post just makes the noise more apparent. Better to increase ISO, maximize the exposure in-camera (and even blow the sky such that it is entirely white when it is gray and overcast, since the sky isn't the subject and doesn't really matter), then pull the exposure down in post. You'll increase your signal to noise ratio, which is preserved with the post-process pull.

[East Wind Photography]

LOL!  The one I had ended in serial 508.

Just got my CPS 1Dx yesterday! GF hid it from me and it was on the table this AM with breakfast with a full charge and my 200 f/2 attached!

Can't wait to compare the two now!

[RMC33]

LOL!  The one I had ended in serial 508.

Just got my CPS 1Dx yesterday! GF hid it from me and it was on the table this AM with breakfast with a full charge and my 200 f/2 attached!

Can't wait to compare the two now!

Bummer 338 here. I have to say, I love the build quality already. The manual is a bit daunting but there are a lot of Cfn's I like that the 5d3 Lacks. Glad I have a bunch of time off in the next two weeks to shoot.

[East Wind Photography]

Interesting on the 1DX exposure adjustment.  I wonder if it's due to the focusing screen they selected for them?  One would think they would be calibrated based on a Canon standard.

On the samples I posted, I whole heartedly admit that the exposures were not the best. The point I was trying to make between the two shots is 1) the finer noise/grain patterns on the 5DIII and 2) the amount of Chroma noise.  Yes more exposure would push the chroma on both shots below the noise floor but at least at ISO 1000 it shows they're either equal or (my opinion) the 5DIII actually shows very slightly less under similar conditions.  Either way chroma is a non issue with the excellent post filters available today and at higher ISO's the 1DX would likely win in the chroma dept when comparing raw images and also the "grain" patterns at very high ISO's.  Maybe not so much difference up to around 3200.

Problem with underexposing with snow is that it then has a gray tint, which you can fix in post I agree, so no big deal.  At weddings I'd always shoot +1EV for the bride's dress to make it exactly white (with proper WB of course).  With RAW now though, all that can be done if you don't get it right in cam. 

EastWind, it's a tough world out there!  I feel your pain with dark/light and mixed lighting scenes.  I've battled that all winter.  You'd think you could avoid it in outdoor sports, but not when the university schedules soccer games at 1pm in early September!  You gotta just do the best you can. 

Watch your 1DX metering.  Mine both are too dark relative to my 5D3 and I had to set base AE up to 5/8 instead of 0 EV!  I consulted with a few other 1DX owners and they had the same result.  So you do have to watch that, as even metering is all relative.

[bdunbar79]

I don't know what it is.  But set the 5D3 to 1/200s, f/3.2, ISO 1600, and then I set both of my 1DX's to the same settings, same lens, same tripod, and shot a target, and the 1DX images were darker.  I moved the 1DX ISO up to 2000 and 2500 and the 2000 was still a tad dark and the 2500 was brighter.  I played around with AE and set it at 3/8-5/8 and it seems to match up now to the settings I'm normally used to from previous cameras.  I consulted many other 1DX owners who did the same thing.  Again, I don't know what it is.  One thing I did notice is that with the 5D3 you can have the EV scale at 0, and highlights still get blown.  SAME situation and have EV at 0 with a 1DX, and none of the highlights are blown, ever.  It's not aesthetically pleasing but I'm thinking Canon knows this and it is intentional, and has to do with the metering system accuracy over the 5D3.  It's only a good thing.

[East Wind Photography]

Wondering of in that instance the highlights getting blown out are due to either the 5DIII overexposing based on AE +-0 or that the 1DX is underexposing?  Obviously the 1DX is better at capturing the highlight detail but it is interesting and perhaps partially accounts for some of the loss.  I'm sure Canon has a reasonable explanation.  I didn't mess with it on the 1DX but I think I saw an AE micro adjust setting in the firmware. Just as you can adjust the AFMA you can tweak the metering.  Is that where you set the +5/8?

I don't know what it is.  But set the 5D3 to 1/200s, f/3.2, ISO 1600, and then I set both of my 1DX's to the same settings, same lens, same tripod, and shot a target, and the 1DX images were darker.  I moved the 1DX ISO up to 2000 and 2500 and the 2000 was still a tad dark and the 2500 was brighter.  I played around with AE and set it at 3/8-5/8 and it seems to match up now to the settings I'm normally used to from previous cameras.  I consulted many other 1DX owners who did the same thing.  Again, I don't know what it is.  One thing I did notice is that with the 5D3 you can have the EV scale at 0, and highlights still get blown.  SAME situation and have EV at 0 with a 1DX, and none of the highlights are blown, ever.  It's not aesthetically pleasing but I'm thinking Canon knows this and it is intentional, and has to do with the metering system accuracy over the 5D3.  It's only a good thing.

[bdunbar79]

Well, it's not just relative to the 5D3, it's all cameras other than the 1DX.  Did the same thing with the 1D4.  I'm not convinced that the 1DX isn't underexposing relative to 0EV, or the 5D3 is relative to some other value of EV than 0.  It's my gut feeling that the 1DX slightly underexposes at lower ISO, and then actually slightly overexposes at high ISO.  I ran a series of images at a night soccer game once and once the 1DX crossed from ISO 6400, to 8000, the image was much brighter overall than 1/3 stop.  So it is something with the sensor and/or metering system that they did to reach cleaner, higher ISO's, and I don't know what it is exactly.

[East Wind Photography]

Well it's good to know CPS has more than one to loan out! 

Please post some caparisons when you get a chance, particularly if you can take some in the snow.  Lots of highlights and would be good comparison of the 5DIII and 1DX at reproducing such.  We dont get a lot of snow here but Im planning a polar bear trip and would be nice to see if the 1DX does any better when everything is white except the eyes! 

LOL!  The one I had ended in serial 508.

Just got my CPS 1Dx yesterday! GF hid it from me and it was on the table this AM with breakfast with a full charge and my 200 f/2 attached!

Can't wait to compare the two now!

Bummer 338 here. I have to say, I love the build quality already. The manual is a bit daunting but there are a lot of Cfn's I like that the 5d3 Lacks. Glad I have a bunch of time off in the next two weeks to shoot.

[East Wind Photography]

I agree.  When I said overexpose by 1 stop I meant over what the metering was telling me.  Shooting into the sky will never give you an accurate metering unless you are shooting clouds and even then you might want to shoot under the metering value.

But I do agree that the histogram is the way to go if you have the time to make that comparison.  Often with BIF images you cant predict where the bird will be and checking a histogram prior to it is impossible.  You can be in the ball park though but maybe not an ideal setting.  Experience usually will get you there as well.

Yes I agree.  These are not the best exposed images.  As I said the lighting was awful and the shot with the 5DIII it had just started sleeting.  It was overexposed by about 2 stops already.  The 1DX was exposed about 1 stop over.  I tried to find a couple of shots that were challenging in comparison. 

I am not sure I would use the word "overexposed", if I understand what you are getting at. If you are referring to the EC scale in the viewfinder that the camera meter updates, then I would say the meter gravely MISS-METERED those images. Keep in mind, the camera meter is rather dumb...it generally aims for an ~18% gray average tone. Given the sky in those photos, the meter was actually underexposing. I would actually say it probably under-exposed by two to three full stops!

We have exposure compensation for a reason, and if we have to boost exposure with EC, then that does not mean we are over exposing....it means we are correcting the meters incorrect automatic exposure settings. I would have happily blown the sky in those images entirely, if it allowed me to get better exposure on the eagle itself. I'd have pushed exposure as far as I could, to the point where the feathers of the eagles head were in the 240 RGB range, then corrected DOWN in post. By literally over-exposing, then pushing exposure down in post, you actually mitigate noise. I have some examples of this with a dragonfly I photographed a while back...I accidentally overexposed the original shots by some three stops, and corrected in post. Compared to the later shots, the corrected ones that were overexposed had almost zero visible noise, while one that was "correctly" exposed in camera had a plenty of visible noise. I'll see if I can dig those up.

Noise is not actually caused by high ISO...it is caused by too little light. The ISO setting simply changes the readout whitepoint, which intrinsically limits the maximum exposure level. If you push to ISO 1000, but then expose such that your whites are below an RGB value of 200...you are simply exacerbating the problem of not having enough light. If you cannot use a longer shutter speed, then the best way to maximize exposure is to increase ISO. It doesn't get any more light down the lens, but it reads out the exposure you have in the least-noisy way. Higher in-camera ISO will almost always trump post-process exposure push. Pushing a noisy exposure in post just makes the noise more apparent. Better to increase ISO, maximize the exposure in-camera (and even blow the sky such that it is entirely white when it is gray and overcast, since the sky isn't the subject and doesn't really matter), then pull the exposure down in post. You'll increase your signal to noise ratio, which is preserved with the post-process pull.

[garyknrd]

Thank's allot for the comparison. Well thought out and very informative. You mentioned shutter noise. I just got a Mark IV and it is the first time I can remember when a bird actually heard the noise and flew. It is very noisy also. My friend has a 5D III and it is so quiet compared to mine.
www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos

[RMC33]

Well it's good to know CPS has more than one to loan out! 

Please post some caparisons when you get a chance, particularly if you can take some in the snow.  Lots of highlights and would be good comparison of the 5DIII and 1DX at reproducing such.  We dont get a lot of snow here but Im planning a polar bear trip and would be nice to see if the 1DX does any better when everything is white except the eyes! 

LOL!  The one I had ended in serial 508.

Just got my CPS 1Dx yesterday! GF hid it from me and it was on the table this AM with breakfast with a full charge and my 200 f/2 attached!

Can't wait to compare the two now!

Bummer 338 here. I have to say, I love the build quality already. The manual is a bit daunting but there are a lot of Cfn's I like that the 5d3 Lacks. Glad I have a bunch of time off in the next two weeks to shoot.

My plan is tomorrow to head up to Lake Tahoe and do a few landscape pannos. Should be a good side by side as there is a lot of snow and black igneous rock to test the highs and lows (going to shoot regular, 3 and 5 shot HDR's). Going to use my 200 f/2, 50 f/1.4 and 8-15 Fish for most of my shooting. I may bust out my rental 24 TS-E too and do a few buildings. My biggest concern is going to be sports, and I will be shooting a skier/snowboarder x(cross) event on Thursday March 28. It is a late day to night event so that should push a few extremes. I am a bit worried loosing the crop factor and wish I had a 1DIV to toss into the mix but I didn't feel like spending the money on a rental. All of the testing aside from the sports event will be side by side 1Dx - 5dIII.

[East Wind Photography]

Yes and put the 5DIII into Silent drive mode (3 fps only though) and you can hardly hear it.  Clearly that mode was designed for weddings but it's scary silent and useful when you dont need 6 fps.

Thank's allot for the comparison. Well thought out and very informative. You mentioned shutter noise. I just got a Mark IV and it is the first time I can remember when a bird actually heard the noise and flew. It is very noisy also. My friend has a 5D III and it is so quiet compared to mine.
www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos

[AWSPhotography]

Morning folks, 1st post here so forgive me if I seems a little noob ish, 

I'm currently saving for my 1dx (I have a very supportive wife and no kids) after just getting my 600 mk1 and I currently use a 5d mk2. Right so that's where I'm currently coming from just so that ppl know.

I read this thread with great interest as the 1dx is going to be a major spend for me, just like the 600 was before it.

I shoot wildlife exclusively so this thread was even more important to read.
As a wildlife photographer I can tell you that I miss 12fps (as currently I can only go 3) I miss the high iso noise handling (1600 is as far as I can acceptably push it on the mk2) and with the locations I am going to I will need the weather sealing that the 5d doesn't have.

Also as a wildlife photographer my 1st concern is the welfare of the wildlife itself, so you say that the 12fps is so loud it scares of the subject? Then my friend you are WAY too close! I have had the use of a 1dmk 4 (as the kingfisher photographs on my site will a testify ) and was within 15mtrs of it and it didn't scare off. But that's my personal opinion and shouldn't be taken as criticism in any way. Is there some kind of wrap you could put on the camera (a bit like camera armour) that would deaden the sound?

As has already been posted here, Andy rouse, a world wide acclaimed wildlife photographer tested and subsequently bought 2 dx's, and as its his living he's gambling with I'm sure he know what he's doing. Please the importantance in this here is that he used to exclusively shoot with Nikon. He found the dx so good he bought into the system to use it. Why didn't he look at the 5d3? Because it doesn't have the weather sealing needed, the fps (btw he never mentioned how loud it was or that he had scared off any subjects) or the extreme high iso noise handling that the dx.

I have looked at your site and you have some wonderful images (especially of the foxes ) but you're not exclusively a wildlife photographer, and I doubt very much that you will be going to to the jungle, desert or arctic/Antarctic or locations that will really push the camera to its limits just to photograph a subject which lives there.

I'm pleased for you that the 5d3 works for you, the mk2 that I have is a great all round camera and I can only imagine how much better the mk3 is above that.

But for me, as I am going to the desert, jungles, arctic and Antarctic .... I'll continue to save and stick with my idea of getting a dx

Oh and as a side note ....don't use an iPad to make long posts as I just have 

[East Wind Photography]

First off welcome to the CR forum.  Lots of helpful and not so helpful people here but none the less a very useful forum.  I'm actually using an iPod right now so I'm not going to leave a long post.

For some/most you have to get close to your subject or you are cropping way too much.  The 1dX noise wise would be fine if you shoot from a truck or noisy public area.  But from a blind or edge of a lake it's way too loud.

1dx is way better sealed and seems to offer better high ISO iq and I'm talking above ISO 3200.  Below that and the 5d3 is comparable.  In fact the noise patterns are smaller on the 5d3 due to the higher pixel density.

Don't know where you live but if you can try to rent or eval the 1dx before you buy I would recommend that since its a large purchase.  The 1dx will be light years better than the 5d2. 

Morning folks, 1st post here so forgive me if I seems a little noob ish, 

I'm currently saving for my 1dx (I have a very supportive wife and no kids) after just getting my 600 mk1 and I currently use a 5d mk2. Right so that's where I'm currently coming from just so that ppl know.

I read this thread with great interest as the 1dx is going to be a major spend for me, just like the 600 was before it.

I shoot wildlife exclusively so this thread was even more important to read.
As a wildlife photographer I can tell you that I miss 12fps (as currently I can only go 3) I miss the high iso noise handling (1600 is as far as I can acceptably push it on the mk2) and with the locations I am going to I will need the weather sealing that the 5d doesn't have.

Also as a wildlife photographer my 1st concern is the welfare of the wildlife itself, so you say that the 12fps is so loud it scares of the subject? Then my friend you are WAY too close! I have had the use of a 1dmk 4 (as the kingfisher photographs on my site will a testify ) and was within 15mtrs of it and it didn't scare off. But that's my personal opinion and shouldn't be taken as criticism in any way. Is there some kind of wrap you could put on the camera (a bit like camera armour) that would deaden the sound?

As has already been posted here, Andy rouse, a world wide acclaimed wildlife photographer tested and subsequently bought 2 dx's, and as its his living he's gambling with I'm sure he know what he's doing. Please the importantance in this here is that he used to exclusively shoot with Nikon. He found the dx so good he bought into the system to use it. Why didn't he look at the 5d3? Because it doesn't have the weather sealing needed, the fps (btw he never mentioned how loud it was or that he had scared off any subjects) or the extreme high iso noise handling that the dx.

I have looked at your site and you have some wonderful images (especially of the foxes ) but you're not exclusively a wildlife photographer, and I doubt very much that you will be going to to the jungle, desert or arctic/Antarctic or locations that will really push the camera to its limits just to photograph a subject which lives there.

I'm pleased for you that the 5d3 works for you, the mk2 that I have is a great all round camera and I can only imagine how much better the mk3 is above that.

But for me, as I am going to the desert, jungles, arctic and Antarctic .... I'll continue to save and stick with my idea of getting a dx

Oh and as a side note ....don't use an iPad to make long posts as I just have 

[AWSPhotography]

Thank you for the reply.

Given what has been discussed in this thread I think your suggestion of hiring to eval the dx is now a must for me and will be looking to do just that

I live in the uk (awsphotography.co.uk) so hiring shouldn't be a problem.

Once again ty for the welcome