1dx, or d800e?

[Tcapp]

So you guys like the 5dmk3's metering better than the 1dx? i've never really found any one meter to perform much better than any other, but i do remember a few on this site really talking up the 1dx's meter as such an improvement over the 5dmk3. hmmm. yeah, they all get tricked. lately i've been using my 5dmk3 with a +2/3 exp comp. your exp comp works to 5/8ths?

You misunderstood, I overexpose on purpose, I like that for my images. And the metering is wayway better than anything I have ever tried.

Try the 5d3 with bright backlit subject and then do the same with the X, you'll notice the X is spot on and the 5d needs about 3 stops compensation.

Can the x intelligently spot meter when needed in a backlit situation if its set to something other than spot?

 

[bdunbar79]

So you guys like the 5dmk3's metering better than the 1dx? i've never really found any one meter to perform much better than any other, but i do remember a few on this site really talking up the 1dx's meter as such an improvement over the 5dmk3. hmmm. yeah, they all get tricked. lately i've been using my 5dmk3 with a +2/3 exp comp. your exp comp works to 5/8ths?

You misunderstood, I overexpose on purpose, I like that for my images. And the metering is wayway better than anything I have ever tried.

Try the 5d3 with bright backlit subject and then do the same with the X, you'll notice the X is spot on and the 5d needs about 3 stops compensation.

Can the x intelligently spot meter when needed in a backlit situation if its set to something other than spot?

No, it's inconsistent. You get bright, dark, dark, bright, etc. However, it's not WORSE than the 5D3, it's just in that case it's not better. You have to use spot metering.

 

[Tcapp]

So you guys like the 5dmk3's metering better than the 1dx? i've never really found any one meter to perform much better than any other, but i do remember a few on this site really talking up the 1dx's meter as such an improvement over the 5dmk3. hmmm. yeah, they all get tricked. lately i've been using my 5dmk3 with a +2/3 exp comp. your exp comp works to 5/8ths?

You misunderstood, I overexpose on purpose, I like that for my images. And the metering is wayway better than anything I have ever tried.

Try the 5d3 with bright backlit subject and then do the same with the X, you'll notice the X is spot on and the 5d needs about 3 stops compensation.

Can the x intelligently spot meter when needed in a backlit situation if its set to something other than spot?

No, it's inconsistent. You get bright, dark, dark, bright, etc. However, it's not WORSE than the 5D3, it's just in that case it's not better. You have to use spot metering.

OH, ok. Viggo made it sound like the 1dx would nail it when the 5d3 would be way off.

 

[Viggo]

So you guys like the 5dmk3's metering better than the 1dx? i've never really found any one meter to perform much better than any other, but i do remember a few on this site really talking up the 1dx's meter as such an improvement over the 5dmk3. hmmm. yeah, they all get tricked. lately i've been using my 5dmk3 with a +2/3 exp comp. your exp comp works to 5/8ths?

You misunderstood, I overexpose on purpose, I like that for my images. And the metering is wayway better than anything I have ever tried.

Try the 5d3 with bright backlit subject and then do the same with the X, you'll notice the X is spot on and the 5d needs about 3 stops compensation.

Can the x intelligently spot meter when needed in a backlit situation if its set to something other than spot?

No, it's inconsistent. You get bright, dark, dark, bright, etc. However, it's not WORSE than the 5D3, it's just in that case it's not better. You have to use spot metering.

OH, ok. Viggo made it sound like the 1dx would nail it when the 5d3 would be way off.

From my experience with both cameras trying difficult light situations, that is correct.

I hardly ever use the EC on the 1d , I'm not sure why some people don't get those results. Maybe it has to do with me using Ai and iTR tracking making the AE work together with what I focus on. For instance when tracking a backlit face in Average metering I don't at all need to swap to spot. In fact, 99,99% of my 20k shots are in Average mode. Not counting manual strobist stuff...

 

[bdunbar79]

I was commenting on shadows, for instance, at a 1pm football game where home team has white jerseys, and bright sun. Suppose the drive is coming at you, with sun behind the players. If you are to use CWA let's say, and meter in the shadow of the front of the player, the shadow will still be very dark, and you will have to do post processing, sometimes upwards of 100% shadow detail. Spot metering gets it closer, but still not aesthetically pleasing, and you must again, do post shadow recovery. This is with 1DX or 5D3. With CWA, the bright/dark/bright/dark inconsistencies trend the same on both cameras. That is why I use spot metering in those situations. Evaluative is even worse. Evaluative will even the lighting across the scene, and if a white jersey is very bright, forget about it. Metering for the dark shadows is very helpful because with the 1DX files, turning down the highlights works very nicely and is very forgiving. The 5D3 files are pretty good, but not nearly as forgiving as the 1DX.

 

[Fishnose]

UPDATE.
200 f2- nothing prepares you for how heavy and awkward that thing is. No way I would carry it around a wedding, and wouldn't be too excited about taking it along on an engagement shoot. It felt so unbalanced on the d800. That said, it produces some stunning bokeh, but for the price and especially the weight, I feel my 70-200 2.8 is II is good enough, at least for now.

LOL yes, your 70-200 sure is good enough. Forget about a fixed 200 at weddings. Huge lump to carry around and very limited in all the tight corners.
And the DOF at F/2 is so short the tip of her nose will be out of focus when her eyes are focused.

That shallow DOF is EXACTLY why I want that lens. Not for candids of course, but for portraits of the couple. Like that all important photo of the couple walking hand in hand down the road...

Yes, I understood that. But the step from 2.8 to 2 isn't worth the hassle/price/weight. The D800 has a really very short DOF as it is - the high resolution adds to shallowness. And makes DOF sweeter.

 

[Studio1930]

The D800 has a really very short DOF as it is - the high resolution adds to shallowness. And makes DOF sweeter.

Ummmm.... ??? I'm not sure I follow that comment. How do you get "short" DOF and how do you get that from a camera body or sensor as opposed to a lens (talking 35mm format compared to other 35mm format and not medium or large format compared to 35mm format)?

 

[Tcapp]

UPDATE.
200 f2- nothing prepares you for how heavy and awkward that thing is. No way I would carry it around a wedding, and wouldn't be too excited about taking it along on an engagement shoot. It felt so unbalanced on the d800. That said, it produces some stunning bokeh, but for the price and especially the weight, I feel my 70-200 2.8 is II is good enough, at least for now.

LOL yes, your 70-200 sure is good enough. Forget about a fixed 200 at weddings. Huge lump to carry around and very limited in all the tight corners.
And the DOF at F/2 is so short the tip of her nose will be out of focus when her eyes are focused.

That shallow DOF is EXACTLY why I want that lens. Not for candids of course, but for portraits of the couple. Like that all important photo of the couple walking hand in hand down the road...

Yes, I understood that. But the step from 2.8 to 2 isn't worth the hassle/price/weight. The D800 has a really very short DOF as it is - the high resolution adds to shallowness. And makes DOF sweeter.

I'm having a hard time believing that resolution has ANYTHING to do with DOF. Tell me the science behind that.

The DoF is determined by the lens. It is what it is before it hits the sensor. Now, sensor SIZE matters, cause you can get closer for the same framing, therefore decreasing DoF. But the density of the sensor should have no bearing on that.

 

[Shawn L]

I suspect it has to do with the circle of confusion calculations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Here are CoC values for some cameras: http://www.dofmaster.com/digital_coc.html

The more densely packed the sensor, the smaller a circle of confusion you can resolve, the smaller the DOF (hoping I parsed that right; figuring if I didn't, someone will correct me, though )

Shawn L.

 

[risc32]

after i posted that i thought about how the 1dx has that facial recognition thing and perhaps that info was being used by the metering system. I could see that. heck i do see that, my little panasonic P&S does this. not very quickly, and not perfectly, but it certainly helps(in the case of my P&S).

Actually, i was shooting some video of my boys riding their bikes the other day and was using some auto mode, probably "p" mode. So i was watching the lcd while recording and a funny thing happened. well, i thought it was funny. little white boxes appeared around my kids faces, and followed them around the frame. plus it looked like it was taking the exposure of my boys faces into account. probably not weird if you are on a 1dx, but i'm on a 5dmk3. i didn't think it capable.

 

[Tcapp]

I suspect it has to do with the circle of confusion calculations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Here are CoC values for some cameras: http://www.dofmaster.com/digital_coc.html

The more densely packed the sensor, the smaller a circle of confusion you can resolve, the smaller the DOF (hoping I parsed that right; figuring if I didn't, someone will correct me, though )

Shawn L.

No no no. It has to do with sensor SIZE, not density! :

 

[Tcapp]

Update #2

After playing with the files, including upscaling the 1dx to the 5d3 and d800 resolutions, I've concluded that there isn't a TON of difference. Yes, the d800e is sharper at 100% at 36mp, but the 1dx seems to take sharpening much better. 1dx raw vs jpeg is night and day difference too. Amazing, but that is to be expected.

As for print sizes, ive calculated that the:
1dx = 18x12 at 300dpi
5d3 = 19x13 at 300dpi
d800 = 25x16 at 300dpi
(numbers are rounded)

SO that bump in resolution from 1dx to 5d3 is basically nothing. one inch in print. Up to the d800 seems like a fairly substantial increase in size, but again, not a HUGE difference.

See below for a comparison of 1dx upscaled to d800e resolution, to compare sharpness. From RAW

The d800e has been sharpened, but the 1dx received more.

 

[verysimplejason]

Food for the thought. I had fun reading this Ken Rockwell article. He may not be entirely right but this reminded me not to worry about my equipment so much and to go out and just take pictures.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

 

[Studio1930]

I suspect it has to do with the circle of confusion calculations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Here are CoC values for some cameras: http://www.dofmaster.com/digital_coc.html

The more densely packed the sensor, the smaller a circle of confusion you can resolve, the smaller the DOF (hoping I parsed that right; figuring if I didn't, someone will correct me, though )

Shawn L.

No no no. It has to do with sensor SIZE, not density! :

Exactly! Sensor size is used to determine the circle of confusion which is why medium format looks different than 35mm.

"A standard value of CoC is often associated with each image format"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

 

[bdunbar79]

I own both, 1DX and 5D3. Let me say this. At high ISO, say 12,800, I can still print 8 x 10's or better with very fine detail and no noise with the 1DX with minimal processing, whereras the 5D3 requires a lot more post processing. Also, the 1DX files can pull more shadow detail and highlight recovery. Despite having 3 less MP's, the prints are substantially better. My Nikon buddies who shoot sports, ie D4, say they wish they had a 1DX instead when they look at my RAW files and prints.

I have no experience with the D800/E.

Quite a MYTH you are spreading around, RAW measurements shows that the two cameras are similar at high iso
and as I wrote before, check the parameters time/f-stop and you maybe find difference in real iso.
Canon has improved the noise reduction in JPG and JPG out from the camera , there they are better today than Nikon
are in D4

Nope. Speaking from experience with the cameras, something YOU don't have.