1DX vs 5D3

[wockawocka]

I've the 1DX and 5D3 and within the ISO ranges of 400-51200 the 1DX smacks the 5D3 with a big wet comedy fish.

And those are the real ranges to test. I'm fed up seeing the 'here's the picture I took with both, what do you think' posts.

I've shot 5 weddings, some 8000 frames in total with the 1DX, almost the same number as the 5D3 and there is so much more than iso range that's an improvement. The Auto White Balance for one is superb. No real white balance corrections to do in post.

The images have miles more clarity to them too, despite losing 4 mp I can retrieve detail I could only dream of with the 5D3, the hair on peoples heads and pollen on flowers being good examples.

ISO1600 - F5 - 1/160

 

[canon816]

Here's one thing I can say. If you shoot the WB incorrectly in fluorescent or tungsten temps, you can't correct them in post 100%. If the camera shoots at those temps to begin with, you can.

When you shoot in RAW it does not matter what WB setting you shoot in. This is simply a preset that communicates to present the JPG rendition or is communicated to editing software to get you close to true neutral grey.

If you shoot in RAW the information in the data file is the same regardless of WB setting. Much like the NR settings, sharpness settings and picture styles don't matter. That's the point of RAW.... you have it all there to work with....

 

[bdunbar79]

I've the 1DX and 5D3 and within the ISO ranges of 400-51200 the 1DX smacks the 5D3 with a big wet comedy fish.

And those are the real ranges to test. I'm fed up seeing the 'here's the picture I took with both, what do you think' posts.

I've shot 5 weddings, some 8000 frames in total with the 1DX, almost the same number as the 5D3 and there is so much more than iso range that's an improvement. The Auto White Balance for one is superb. No real white balance corrections to do in post.

The images have miles more clarity to them too, despite losing 4 mp I can retrieve detail I could only dream of with the 5D3, the hair on peoples heads and pollen on flowers being good examples.

ISO1600 - F5 - 1/160

I'm tired of reading "1D-body syndrome" claims whereby the 1DX just destroys the 5D3. I have seen absolutely NO image ever so far, where this is true, including yours. Look at Bryan Carnathan's review even. He says the same thing. Can you show us please? We know you think the 1DX is the greatest thing ever, but why? Can someone please put two photos together to show this? I cannot. I've pushed each camera to their limits and I can see no IQ advantage at all. It may be way better than the 5D3, but can someone show us?

 

[Loswr]

It may be way better than the 5D3...

Oh, there's no question. The 1D X is way better than the 5DIII... Flash back a few years to how the 1DsIII had 'better color rendition' and 'better low ISO performance' and 'whatever' compared to the 5DII, despite the 5DII having a better sensor (according to Canon's white paper on the 5DII/50D). The theme is the same - there are lots of features that make the 1D X better, but if your main criterion is IQ, you'll save a lot of $/£/€ by getting a 5DIII.

 

[bdunbar79]

It may be way better than the 5D3...

Oh, there's no question. The 1D X is way better than the 5DIII... Flash back a few years to how the 1DsIII had 'better color rendition' and 'better low ISO performance' and 'whatever' compared to the 5DII, despite the 5DII having a better sensor (according to Canon's white paper on the 5DII/50D). The theme is the same - there are lots of features that make the 1D X better, but if your main criterion is IQ, you'll save a lot of $/£/€ by getting a 5DIII.

Ok. I agree with this. If IQ is similar, then the 1DX is better overall, over all aspects. I also agree with the finer detail comment by wocka, I saw this myself in a few landscape shots. I think the less 4mp is probably not an issue. Only difference with the 1Ds3 is that camera had 21mp. Perhaps not an issue. Thanks. I still would like to a do a macro shot of a flower with both and see the detail comparison.

 

[Dylan777]

I've the 1DX and 5D3 and within the ISO ranges of 400-51200 the 1DX smacks the 5D3 with a big wet comedy fish.

And those are the real ranges to test. I'm fed up seeing the 'here's the picture I took with both, what do you think' posts.

I've shot 5 weddings, some 8000 frames in total with the 1DX, almost the same number as the 5D3 and there is so much more than iso range that's an improvement. The Auto White Balance for one is superb. No real white balance corrections to do in post.

The images have miles more clarity to them too, despite losing 4 mp I can retrieve detail I could only dream of with the 5D3, the hair on peoples heads and pollen on flowers being good examples.

ISO1600 - F5 - 1/160

I'm tired of reading "1D-body syndrome" claims whereby the 1DX just destroys the 5D3. I have seen absolutely NO image ever so far, where this is true, including yours. Look at Bryan Carnathan's review even. He says the same thing. Can you show us please? We know you think the 1DX is the greatest thing ever, but why? Can someone please put two photos together to show this? I cannot. I've pushed each camera to their limits and I can see no IQ advantage at all. It may be way better than the 5D3, but can someone show us?

bdunbar79,
Thank you so MUCH for comparing two great cameras.

Dylan

 

[nightbreath]

Here's one thing I can say. If you shoot the WB incorrectly in fluorescent or tungsten temps, you can't correct them in post 100%. If the camera shoots at those temps to begin with, you can.

When you shoot in RAW it does not matter what WB setting you shoot in. This is simply a preset that communicates to present the JPG rendition or is communicated to editing software to get you close to true neutral grey.

If you shoot in RAW the information in the data file is the same regardless of WB setting. Much like the NR settings, sharpness settings and picture styles don't matter. That's the point of RAW.... you have it all there to work with....

This is not true Even if you shoot RAW it is being generated depending on settings in your camera. For example, make 3 high ISO shots with different noise reduction settings (no / normal / high) and you'll see difference in RAW (I did this test on 7D, not sure if all cameras behave the same).

 

[Loswr]

This is not true Even if you shoot RAW it is being generated depending on settings in your camera. For example, make 3 high ISO shots with different noise reduction settings (no / normal / high) and you'll see difference in RAW (I did this test on 7D, not sure if all cameras behave the same).

Something fishy going on there. The only in-camera NR setting that affects the RAW file is the long exposure NR (because that subtracts a dark frame from the image). White balance, high ISO NR, picture style, ALO, etc., have no effect on the RAW image, although they do put flags in the metadata that alter the settings preselected when you open the image in DPP and many other converters.

 

[bdunbar79]

Here's one thing I can say. If you shoot the WB incorrectly in fluorescent or tungsten temps, you can't correct them in post 100%. If the camera shoots at those temps to begin with, you can.

When you shoot in RAW it does not matter what WB setting you shoot in. This is simply a preset that communicates to present the JPG rendition or is communicated to editing software to get you close to true neutral grey.

If you shoot in RAW the information in the data file is the same regardless of WB setting. Much like the NR settings, sharpness settings and picture styles don't matter. That's the point of RAW.... you have it all there to work with....

This is not true Even if you shoot RAW it is being generated depending on settings in your camera. For example, make 3 high ISO shots with different noise reduction settings (no / normal / high) and you'll see difference in RAW (I did this test on 7D, not sure if all cameras behave the same).

Thank you! This is what I observed too. I shot Cloudy for both, and obviously got the wrong color. Ok. I set to Tungsten in Camera RAW, 1dx was green, 5d3 wasn't. Next, I shoot in Tungsten WB in camera, 1Dx is correct, 5D3 looks green. Go figure.

 

[Loswr]

Thank you! This is what I observed too. I shot Cloudy for both, and obviously got the wrong color. Ok. I set to Tungsten in Camera RAW, 1dx was green, 5d3 wasn't. Next, I shoot in Tungsten WB in camera, 1Dx is correct, 5D3 looks green. Go figure.

I figure ACR might be at fault in the situation you describe. Have you tried the same thing using DPP?

 

[bdunbar79]

It's most certainly Camera RAW program, which I figured. It's not the camera.

 

[canon816]

It's most certainly Camera RAW program, which I figured. It's not the camera.

Exactly what I was pointing out. Neuro and I are both on the same page with this one. This is truly the beauty of shooting RAW. You have so much data contained within the file that the post processing abilities are leagues ahead of JPG. If you were shooting JPG then all those settings really do matter.

I actually set all my NR and sharpening off in camera so that the LCD image review is more true to what I can expect the RAW file to look like. I have often shot an image that looked tack sharp on the LCD to find that it is not, but rather the "in camera" sharpening applied to the JPG rendition on the screen just looked tack sharp.

 

[nightbreath]

This is not true Even if you shoot RAW it is being generated depending on settings in your camera. For example, make 3 high ISO shots with different noise reduction settings (no / normal / high) and you'll see difference in RAW (I did this test on 7D, not sure if all cameras behave the same).

Something fishy going on there. The only in-camera NR setting that affects the RAW file is the long exposure NR (because that subtracts a dark frame from the image). White balance, high ISO NR, picture style, ALO, etc., have no effect on the RAW image, although they do put flags in the metadata that alter the settings preselected when you open the image in DPP and many other converters.

I was using a light image viewer (Irfan View, 1.5 Mb + CRW plugin). Try it yourself if you want.

 

[bdunbar79]

This is not true Even if you shoot RAW it is being generated depending on settings in your camera. For example, make 3 high ISO shots with different noise reduction settings (no / normal / high) and you'll see difference in RAW (I did this test on 7D, not sure if all cameras behave the same).

Something fishy going on there. The only in-camera NR setting that affects the RAW file is the long exposure NR (because that subtracts a dark frame from the image). White balance, high ISO NR, picture style, ALO, etc., have no effect on the RAW image, although they do put flags in the metadata that alter the settings preselected when you open the image in DPP and many other converters.

I was using a light image viewer (Irfan View, 1.5 Mb + CRW plugin). Try it yourself if you want.

Your info is correct, but not what we were talking about. We know that WB doesn't matter in RAW, what we were pointing out is the fact that shooting under proper WB, such as Tungsten, the 5D3 has a slight green hue in the shadows. The 1DX doesn't. You cannot fix this green hue, seemingly caused by WB but maybe not, in post. Myself and another photographer have noticed this. Sorry I was not clearer on this point in my post.

On the other hand, the 5D3's Tungsten WB is LESS "green" than the 1DX's Tungsten WB. However, this issue can quickly be resolved via color temp. Another point I was not clear on. The problem therefore, is with the 5D3, not the 1DX.

 

[Loswr]

Moreover, hopefully everyone is aware that an in-camera JPG Image is generated even when shooting only in raw, that's what you're seeing on the LCD review, but more importantly, that same JPG Image is used to generate the histogram that you may be relying upon to make exposure decisions. Thus, using a picture style like standard, which boosts the saturation a fair bit, can make you think you're blowing things out that you actually aren't, etc.

@nightbreath - I believe your viewer is simply respecting the NR and other flags in the metadata. The RAW data are unaffected and when the file is opened in a proper converter and the settings are all set the same, those differences you're seeing will disappear.

 

[nightbreath]

@nightbreath - I believe your viewer is simply respecting the NR and other flags in the metadata. The RAW data are unaffected and when the file is opened in a proper converter and the settings are all set the same, those differences you're seeing will disappear.

I thought there was some noise reduction applied before AD conversion. I believe I read about it in some official Canon documentation. Did you hear anything like this?

 

[NotABunny]

This is not true Even if you shoot RAW it is being generated depending on settings in your camera. For example, make 3 high ISO shots with different noise reduction settings (no / normal / high) and you'll see difference in RAW (I did this test on 7D, not sure if all cameras behave the same).

Something fishy going on there. The only in-camera NR setting that affects the RAW file is the long exposure NR (because that subtracts a dark frame from the image). White balance, high ISO NR, picture style, ALO, etc., have no effect on the RAW image, although they do put flags in the metadata that alter the settings preselected when you open the image in DPP and many other converters.

I was using a light image viewer (Irfan View, 1.5 Mb + CRW plugin). Try it yourself if you want.

IrfanView doesn't decode RAWs, it simply shows the embedded JPEG (which, depending on the camera, may even be of a lower resolution).

 

[kaihp]

@bdunbar79: did you get to do the macro shots and the sports shots that you were talking about?
Or did you leave the matter, after deciding on keeping the 1DX'es for the sports shooting

I really appreciate all your work on this.

 

[bdunbar79]

@bdunbar79: did you get to do the macro shots and the sports shots that you were talking about?
Or did you leave the matter, after deciding on keeping the 1DX'es for the sports shooting

I really appreciate all your work on this.

Actually, I did not leave the matter. As nightbreath is likely impatient with me as well, I have had nothing but rain and wind here the last 5 days. I wouldn't think anyone would really value any tests in those situations Yes I will have ample opportunity this week to shoot outdoors, macro and action, at low ISO. Forecast looks good. And I thought from my tests the 1DX is more than good enough, so I went with those for sports and keep a 5D3 as well. I still am curious about detail vs. detail though, at low ISO's and I hope to gain information regarding that this week. I will give the RAW's to another gentleman on here, and then let him do the exact same post-processing on each (I'll be doing the processing of many photos while I'll give him one each of each camera's). Stay tuned!

 

[kaihp]

@bdunbar79: did you get to do the macro shots and the sports shots that you were talking about?
Or did you leave the matter, after deciding on keeping the 1DX'es for the sports shooting

Actually, I did not leave the matter. As nightbreath is likely impatient with me as well, I have had nothing but rain and wind here the last 5 days. I wouldn't think anyone would really value any tests in those situations Yes I will have ample opportunity this week to shoot outdoors, macro and action, at low ISO.

I wasn't trying to be impatient, just wondering if you left it or not. As written in another thread, I'm considering how the 5D3 works for sports shooting, since getting proper AF for sports is the one point I've had problems with. So any feedback on how the AF tracking performs on the 5D3 is highly appreciated.
If you come back and tell me it stinks and the 1DX rocks, I just have to go and kill myself somewhere quietly

I may be itching to get a new body, but my fingers are not twitching just yet so I don't have a problem waiting a week for your research.

Thanks again.