1DX vs 1D IV ??

Crapking

"Whatever you are....be a good one." AL
Nov 9, 2011
445
0
jjlabella.photoshelter.com
Had the guilty pleasure of renting a ID IV this weekend to serve as a second body (to my 7D) to shoot indoor volleyball tournament. While I am not a paid professional (yet), I am striving to take me vision to the next level, and despite nice lenses, the low-light challenges continue to plague some of my shots with unpleasant noise. While I think about light, in my world I cannot control it very much, so I am forced to think more about my gear ;) but only in so much as it helps me achieve on paper (and computer screen) what I 'see' in my mind, and what my clients (players/parents/coaches) can treasure forever.
While I was able to get more 'usable' shots with the 1D IV in the higher ISO ranges (4000-12,800), I'm curious to the potential of the 1DX in this setting vs the 1D IV. I have not yet seen output from the 1DX, and wondering should I expect $2K 'better' high ISO performance. I have almost weekly tournaments to shoot between now and June, and am debating whether to take the plunge now and get my own 1d IV or 'tough' it out with only a single body till the 1Dx comes out. I also have the trip of a lifetime this August (Galapagos Islands) and will 'need' the second body there as well. Are the 7D and 1D IV too close in function and therefore should I wait till the FF 1Dx is available?? While both pricey, the 'extra' $2K has me wondering how much more useful the 1Dx will be c/w the 1D IV ??
 

wickidwombat

EOS 5D SR
Oct 27, 2011
4,543
0
i am hoping used 1D4 prices come down once the actual 1Dx start hitting the streets but i'm keen on getting it mostly for the 1.3 crop and higher res with better high iso over the 1D3 i have.
but i'm also keen to see if a new 7D2 might suit my needs too so i'm just in a holding pattern at the moment. if you can handle the extra cost of the 1Dx it will no doubt be an outstanding camera, but unless you have a pre-order you might be waiting quite a while...
 

pwp

EOS 5D MK IV
Oct 25, 2010
2,527
19
wickidwombat said:
i am hoping used 1D4 prices come down once the actual 1Dx start hitting the streets but i'm keen on getting it mostly for the 1.3 crop and higher res with better high iso over the 1D3 i have.
but i'm also keen to see if a new 7D2 might suit my needs too so i'm just in a holding pattern at the moment. if you can handle the extra cost of the 1Dx it will no doubt be an outstanding camera, but unless you have a pre-order you might be waiting quite a while...
(I think) Dr Neuro explained fairly persuasively that the x1.3 crop on the 1D4 vs the FF 1DX is essentially meaningless. Cropping a 1DX file in post to a x1.3 value will deliver a file almost indistinguishable from the 1D4 file. Want to chime in here Dr Neuro?

When you factor in the improved AF, iso, big bright viewfinder etc it's probably going to be worth dropping that extra couple of $k on the 1Dx. As a very happy 1D4 shooter, I initially took some convincing on this, but now feel comfortably persuaded. The 1DX pre-order stays.

But yes, a low priced 1D4 would be a useful upgrade over the 1D3, especially if your work relies on high performance AF.

Paul Wright
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,607
2,060
pwp said:
(I think) Dr Neuro explained fairly persuasively that the x1.3 crop on the 1D4 vs the FF 1DX is essentially meaningless. Cropping a 1DX file in post to a x1.3 value will deliver a file almost indistinguishable from the 1D4 file. Want to chime in here Dr Neuro?
Can't know for sure until RAW files are available, but in theory yes, you probably won't notice any significant IQ difference between a 1.3x cropped 1D X image and an uncropped 1D IV image. You'd have to be ok with the resulting 10.5 MP file size, of course. Going the other way, if you're not focal length-limited, the uncropped 1D X image will have better IQ (and slightly more MP) than the uncropped 1D IV image. Note that I'm referring to RAW file IQ, ignoring the better jpg engine of Digic5+.
 

wickidwombat

EOS 5D SR
Oct 27, 2011
4,543
0
pwp said:
(I think) Dr Neuro explained fairly persuasively that the x1.3 crop on the 1D4 vs the FF 1DX is essentially meaningless. Cropping a 1DX file in post to a x1.3 value will deliver a file almost indistinguishable from the 1D4 file. Want to chime in here Dr Neuro?
No chance of this i'm afraid
have a look at the iso samples indicating the crops here with the 18MP vs 16MP
http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-IV-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

edit: if you apply a 1.3 crop to the 1Dx resolution of 5184 x 3456 you get 3987x2658 which is 10.6 MP or basically the 1Dmk3
 
B

briansquibb

Guest
Crapking said:
Are the 7D and 1D IV too close in function and therefore should I wait till the FF 1Dx is available?? While both pricey, the 'extra' $2K has me wondering how much more useful the 1Dx will be c/w the 1D IV ??
If you are into sports the AF of the 1D4 alone puts it above the 7D by a long way. Almost every function works better than the 7D, particularly the IQ at high ISO. I went from the 7D to the 1D4 and was blown away by the improvements all round

Why not get a used 1D4?
 

revup67

Memories in the Making
Dec 20, 2010
641
4
Southern California
www.flickr.com
I called Canon support on that 1Dx - the Digic 5+ processors alone may be worth ignoring the 1D IV. The dual Digic 5+ processors (so I was told) are 6 times faster and create approximately 75 percent less noise than the DIGIC 4 processor. The rep stated this results in a lesser need for larger MB's files hence why the MB is lower then most of its similar predecessors. RAW images can be processed at 12 fps as well. That's not to mention a boat load of other cool features such as dual storage cards that can be programmed in a variety of ways (such as a real time backup or extended disk space - you choose), bracketing with 9 exposures..the list goes on. My gut instinct (being in IT) always says if you can afford it go forward with technology not backward.

Rev
PS I hope my wife doesn't read this thread.
 

wickidwombat

EOS 5D SR
Oct 27, 2011
4,543
0
revup67 said:
I called Canon support on that 1Dx - the Digic 5+ (not Digic 5) processors alone may be worth ignoring the 1D IV. The dual Digic 5+ processors (so I was told) are 6 times faster and create approximately 75 percent less noise than the DIGIC 4 processor. The rep stated this results in a lesser need for larger MB's files hence why the MB is lower then most of its similar predecessors. RAW images can be processed at 12 fps as well. That's not to mention a boat load of other cool features such as dual storage cards that can be programmed in a variety of ways (such as a real time backup or extended disk space - you choose), bracketing with 9 exposures..the list goes on. My gut instinct (being in IT) always says if you can afford it go forward with technology not backward.

Rev
I dont doubt it for a second that the 1Dx will overall be better than the 1D mk4
there are however 2 things that the 1Dmk4 has you can't get anywhere else
1) 1.3 crop I want this for using my 16-35 f2.8 as a walkaround effectively 20-48mm and for getting the extra reach on using long lenses. but has better IQ than the 1.6 crops
2) AF at f8 long lenses and teleconverters coupled with item 1 it stomps the 1Dx on the long end.

Ideally i would prefer not to have the bulk of a 1 body which is why i'm holding out for info on the next 7D and just continue with the 1D3 for now
 
W

willrobb

Guest
If canon is willing to loan me a 1DmkIV and a 1DX for the next two years I'd be more than happy to test out all their similarities and differences and answer all the technical questions as best I can ;)
 

revup67

Memories in the Making
Dec 20, 2010
641
4
Southern California
www.flickr.com
1) 1.3 crop I want this for using my 16-35 f2.8 as a walkaround effectively 20-48mm and for getting the extra reach on using long lenses. but has better IQ than the 1.6 crops
2) AF at f8 long lenses and teleconverters coupled with item 1 it stomps the 1Dx on the long end.
Ok gotcha on the (1) though I just read surprisingly on the-digital-picture.com that the current 7D has better resolution than the 1D IV (however) it is not as sharp with the settings on 1 but you sure get the tradeoff with that 1.6 extra reach so know what you mean on item (2). Used a 400mm today on the 7D bringing it to a 640 - that was a treat with wildlife photos. Also used the 16-35 mkii like you with the 7D - most pleased. If you are concerned with IQ, check out the DLA's on your camera choices as well (1DIII, 1D IV, 7D, etc). Though diffraction doesn't have a huge impact it can affect IQ as well. it's just one more thing compounded to reduce the IQ of your overall picture
 
B

briansquibb

Guest
You have only to look at the background blur and the shallower DOF is nice too from the 1D4

The leap from a 1.6 to a ff is huge leap in terms of thinking about what a lens does. Take a 70-200 for example - on a 1.6 this is a medium telephoto, on a ff it is a portrait lens. A 17-40 on a ff is an ultra wide, on a 1.6 it is a kit lens.

The jump from the 1.6 to a 1.3 is not such a big leap - the use of a 1.4 converter on the 1D4 brings back the reach without significant IQ loss whereas the 17-40 is now a useful wide ... and my TSE-24 becomes a useful 32mm and my 180 macro gives me almost 5DII IQ whilst taking me further away from the insects and getting the better AF.

PS 1D4 can do 7 bracketed shots
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,176
743
briansquibb said:
.

The jump from the 1.6 to a 1.3 is not such a big leap -
It is quite a big leap in terms of dof and IQ. And it's the same leap up to FF from 1,3 crop. After using the 1d4 for two years, and selling it, I know borrow my gf's 5d2, and the difference in smooth background and overall feel of the 5d makes my 1d4 look like the 7d when I had the mk4.

For me, the only SLR, is a fullframe now. It is such a huge difference in IQ from the crop-sensors. The difference in noise between 100-400 iso between mk4 and 5d2 is HUGE. The 5d has none, but the mk4 has too much. It doesn't get much more noise as you climb the iso-ladder, but dissapointing to see what you get at 100-400. Now, the 1d X needs to get here fast, I miss my AF...
 
B

briansquibb

Guest
Viggo said:
briansquibb said:
.

The jump from the 1.6 to a 1.3 is not such a big leap -
It is quite a big leap in terms of dof and IQ. And it's the same leap up to FF from 1,3 crop.

Now, the 1d X needs to get here fast, I miss my AF...
I was referring to the impact on lens use ...

I am amazed that you think there is a HUGE difference in ISO peformance - I can only assume you are pixel peeping because I cant see any noise from the 1D4 on my A3 prints. Glad to hear you like the smooth background of the 5DII - I got a lot of smites when suggesting the background of the 5DII was better that of a crop ... As Neuro says - the 1D4 is a compromise camera - it is nearly the best at everything.

The 1Ds3 has a much better AF than the 5D, is full frame and available now .... used prices have tumbled since the 1DX anouncement
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,176
743
briansquibb said:
I was referring to the impact on lens use ...

I am amazed that you think there is a HUGE difference in ISO peformance - I can only assume you are pixel peeping because I cant see any noise from the 1D4 on my A3 prints. Glad to hear you like the smooth background of the 5DII - I got a lot of smites when suggesting the background of the 5DII was better that of a crop ... As Neuro says - the 1D4 is a compromise camera - it is nearly the best at everything.

The 1Ds3 has a much better AF than the 5D, is full frame and available now .... used prices have tumbled since the 1DX anouncement
Well, pixel-peeping, I do all editing at 100% crop, so if that's pixelpeeping, then yes. But it IS a huge difference. Especially when applying sharpening, you can see the noise pops out right away with the mk4, but the 5d you can really push it, and it just gets sharper. Shadow areas are much cleaner (This is all Lightroom-processed) Maybe that handles the file better from the 5d? But my guess is , as you said, it's a jack of all trades. I'm hoping for the 5d-IQ with all other things being a true 1-series speedfreak for the 1d X. I'm testing a BETA-X on 26 and 27th of january, I can try to post what I learn from actually use it here. I didn't get to use my own memorycard, so no pictures, but I will surley scrutinize and pixel-peep way beyond ;D
 
P

Picsfor

Guest
Mmmm, the 1D series has never really set me alight until the 1DX, and i've had a play with them all.

the 1DX really is a different beast, and i really do have a hankering to become a proud owner. As my 'every day camera is a 5D2 with battery grip' - carting a 1DX around would make no difference in bulk and weight - but a helluva lot of difference in performance and 'keepers'.

But as always, the choice is yours...
 

Crapking

"Whatever you are....be a good one." AL
Nov 9, 2011
445
0
jjlabella.photoshelter.com
Appreciate all the feedback, but would like even more personal experiences with the ISO/AF 'differences' between the 7D , 1dIV and speculation about the 1Dx.

With only a single weekend's experience with the 1dIV, swapping back and forth with 7D, I didn't see a DRAMATIC improvement in capture rate of the AF with 1dIV. Shooting moving targets in the 'dark', I use ZONE selection with the 7D sometimes, and overall I don't miss many shots b/c of AF. However, with all the individual points on the 1dIV, it seemed to take me longer to cycle through to where I needed them. Maybe I just needed to get more familiar with the 1dIV? but i missed the ZONE and 4 point expansion options.
To be sure, the 1Dx is bringing the AF to a new level, so that is definitely a plus there over the 1dIV.

With respect to ISO / low-level performance though, I obviously saw improvement between the 7D and 1dIV. Shooting with the 7D at max 3200 mostly, I have come to deal with the noise, but am limited in really dark gyms. I was able to shoot 4000-12,800 with 1dIV in this dark environment, but did have quite a bit of noise, most of which cleaned up in ACR pretty well. But with hundreds of shots, it does take time. What I should have done was take the same type shot with both bodies at the same ISO to compare noise but this was my first 2 body shoot and I was simply too busy focused on having 2 different lenses/options available and didn't really plan enough on a head-head comparison, my bad.

Will the 'improved' 1Dx ISO performance mean:
1). I will have less noise to clean at 2000-3200, or
2). I will be able to capture shots in the dark gyms where I currently don't get anything very usable.
3). A little of both (?)

Other features/benefits aside, how much better can we expect the 1Dx to (out)perform the 1dIV ? With my shooting style and gym limitations, I can accommodate to the FF vs 1.3 vs 1.6 reach / lens issues with my arsenal, and I am improving my positioning and shot planning at every venue, but I am wavering as to the real-world improvement in the image quality. Both will be better than my 7d, but HOW much??

Examples

1dIV ISO 6400 135 @2.2 Tv in a really dark gym


PVC18Yellowreedits1D093 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

7d ISO 3200 135 2.2 Tv in a slightly better lit gym



PVC16Black7d014 by PVC 2012, on Flickr
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,607
2,060
wickidwombat said:
pwp said:
(I think) Dr Neuro explained fairly persuasively that the x1.3 crop on the 1D4 vs the FF 1DX is essentially meaningless. Cropping a 1DX file in post to a x1.3 value will deliver a file almost indistinguishable from the 1D4 file. Want to chime in here Dr Neuro?
No chance of this i'm afraid
have a look at the iso samples indicating the crops here with the 18MP vs 16MP
http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-IV-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

edit: if you apply a 1.3 crop to the 1Dx resolution of 5184 x 3456 you get 3987x2658 which is 10.6 MP or basically the 1Dmk3
The ISO samples on the TDP review aren't relevant to this issue - those are scaled equivalently across sensor resolutions (i.e. the more MP, the bigger the image). The issue being discussed is what happens when you crop the FF image to the FoV of a 1.3x crop, or even a 1.6x crop. The answer is that for approximately equivalent sensor technology, the images aren't too different in terms of IQ, although obviously with the cropped image you end up with far less resolution after cropping. The crop magnifies the effect of IS noise, alters the DoF along with the framing, etc.

Put another way, if you buy a FF camera but then have to crop all your images to 1.3x or 1.6x FoV, you're throwing away the IQ advantages of FF over the smaller sensors, and so you might as well just get the cheaper camera (from an IQ standpoint). Conversely, if you only need to crop a few of your images, the IQ with the FF will be a decided advantage. That might mean getting longer lenses to compensate for the loss of 1.3x crop...which suits Canon just fine...
 

Crapking

"Whatever you are....be a good one." AL
Nov 9, 2011
445
0
jjlabella.photoshelter.com
neuroanatomist said:
wickidwombat said:
pwp said:
(I think) Dr Neuro explained fairly persuasively that the x1.3 crop on the 1D4 vs the FF 1DX is essentially meaningless. Cropping a 1DX file in post to a x1.3 value will deliver a file almost indistinguishable from the 1D4 file. Want to chime in here Dr Neuro?
No chance of this i'm afraid
have a look at the iso samples indicating the crops here with the 18MP vs 16MP
http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-IV-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

edit: if you apply a 1.3 crop to the 1Dx resolution of 5184 x 3456 you get 3987x2658 which is 10.6 MP or basically the 1Dmk3
The ISO samples on the TDP review aren't relevant to this issue - those are scaled equivalently across sensor resolutions (i.e. the more MP, the bigger the image). The issue being discussed is what happens when you crop the FF image to the FoV of a 1.3x crop, or even a 1.6x crop. The answer is that for approximately equivalent sensor technology, the images aren't too different in terms of IQ, although obviously with the cropped image you end up with far less resolution after cropping. The crop magnifies the effect of IS noise, alters the DoF along with the framing, etc.

Put another way, if you buy a FF camera but then have to crop all your images to 1.3x or 1.6x FoV, you're throwing away the IQ advantages of FF over the smaller sensors, and so you might as well just get the cheaper camera (from an IQ standpoint). Conversely, if you only need to crop a few of your images, the IQ with the FF will be a decided advantage. That might mean getting longer lenses to compensate for the loss of 1.3x crop...which suits Canon just fine...
So if I am able to frame what I need with FF or the 1.3, then my IQ (image quality, not my intelligent quotient :)) will be NOTICEABLY improved over my 7d images? I am not a pixel peeper but when I enlarge posters to 16x24, should I expect cleaner/sharper images, or at this size, is it only a theoretical advantage?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,607
2,060
Crapking said:
So if I am able to frame what I need with FF or the 1.3, then my IQ (image quality, not my intelligent quotient :)) will be NOTICEABLY improved over my 7d images? I am not a pixel peeper but when I enlarge posters to 16x24, should I expect cleaner/sharper images, or at this size, is it only a theoretical advantage?
Yes, the IQ will be noticeably better than the 7D if you're printing reasonably large and using the whole image (or minimal cropping) from a FF or 1.3x sensor. That's even more true if you're shooting at higher ISO (or alternately, noise will be similar but you can shoot at even higher ISO).