5D MklV or 1DX

[SteveM]

I currently use a 5D MklV and have found a very good price on a low mileage 1DX. The benefits of a 1DX would be the AF system. I use the 5D MklV for fast action for probably 30% of the time (15% bif and 15% my daughter running around/on her bike). I don't use super telephotos, just the 100-400 mkll and occasionally the 70-200 mkll.
The 5D MklV, being a much newer camera has presumably got a more recent version of AF than the 1DX. Would I get any benefit from the AF in the 1DX....would it lock on and hold better than the MklV?
or put another way, is the AF in the 1DX better/more reliable than the MklV? (not suggesting that the MklV is unreliable)

 

[kaihp]

I have a 5D3 and a 1DX, and here it is no-contest: the 1DX is much better than the 5D3 for fast moving subjects.

As I recall the 5D4 reviews, the 5D4 AF is better than the 5D3, but not significantly better. So my take would be that the 1DX has a better AF than the 5D4.

 

[Larsskv]

I have owned the 1DX, 7DII, and own a 5Ds and 1DXII.

The 5Ds and 1DX are both very good and almost comparable, in terms of AF-precision and functionality, both in still and moving subjects. The 1DX was probably a bit better, but it was not obvious (when you set the frames per seconds aside). The 5Ds has better AF than the 5DIII, mainly because it also (as the 1DX) uses color information when focusing.

The AF in the 1DXII is noticably better than the 1DX, and the 5DIV has (mostly?) the same AF-system as the 1DXII (including AF aid from color information), and therefore I don't believe the AF-system in the 1DX is superior to the one in the 5DIV.

One thing that makes a big difference is the more powerful battery in the 1D-series cameras. The 1DX will drive your lenses AF-motor faster than the 5DIV, and therefore have better focusing speed and therefore sometimes precision. The AF speed difference is hard to notice in smaller and lighter lenses, but is very noticable in the 85LII and probably the big and heavy tele-lenses.

I haven't used my100-400 enough on both the 5Ds and 1DX, to tell if the 1DX is noticably superior when using that particular lens, but I do remember that I found the AF on the 100-400 to be very fast on my 5Ds.

 

[[email protected]]

I owned a couple mark 1s until recently and now use the 5d4 on bif. The af is about the same as 1dx mark2, which I used for the past week. For me, the af was head and shoulders better than 1dx mark1 because of the f/8 focusing on more than a single af point.

A studio guy woul likely have not noticed, but someone pushing things with teleconverters certainly would.

 

[tomscott]

Unless its FPS you need the 5DMKIV I think is a better choice, more res, newer tech and is more portable.

 

[SteveM]

Thanks for the replies, not owning a 1DX I have no chance of a direct comparison. It is looking like I'll be spending the money on a holiday....somewhere I can use and enjoy my gear as opposed to collecting it!
Funny how one feels a little disappointed when not given a reason to buy something new, there's probably a medical name for this.

 

[sanj]

Enjoy the holiday. You made the correct choice.

 

[tpatana]

I have both and I'd say 1DX is tiny bit better but not enough to make any difference.

 

[Sporgon]

Thanks for the replies, not owning a 1DX I have no chance of a direct comparison. It is looking like I'll be spending the money on a holiday....somewhere I can use and enjoy my gear as opposed to collecting it!
Funny how one feels a little disappointed when not given a reason to buy something new, there's probably a medical name for this.

......and CR would normally be a reliable source of the sort of recommendation you were hoping for. Indeed normally in these sorts of discussion the general consensus would be you'd be best off with at least two 1DxIIs. ;D

 

[Yiannis A - Greece]

Thanks for the replies, not owning a 1DX I have no chance of a direct comparison. It is looking like I'll be spending the money on a holiday....somewhere I can use and enjoy my gear as opposed to collecting it!
Funny how one feels a little disappointed when not given a reason to buy something new, there's probably a medical name for this.

Dear Steve,
being a die-hard traveller and an extremely enthousiastic amateur photographer for 2 1/2 decades (since my late teenage), all i can tell you is that, you made the absolutely better choice of all! After spending my first decade of travelling, taking tens of thousands of photos (on film!!!), i realised that, for most of the pictures i took, i was so focused on taking them that, many times i didn't even remember i'd been at a specific place i took a photo of! And, trust me, i have an elephant's memory! It's just that the brain focuses so much on what it's doing that, "switces down" many other activities like, "copying to the memory".
The phenomenon (in...Canon words), reminds me of waking up between two purring beauties in the morning, not being able to remember how i got there, let aside what happened during the night...!!! And, although you'll probably be able to "replay" the trick with the girls later on , you'll never be able to do the exact same holiday trip again!
So, dear friend, my 2 cents are:
a) Only have the least possible amount of alcohol before sex! ;D
b) Use the tool nature gave you to take photos with, YOUR EYES, as much as you can! The images they'll capture will be printed on your heart and soul and you'll always be able to recollect the place, the time and the mood!

Enjoy your vacation, take much less photos with your gear and many more with your eyes!!!.

All my best wishes for you and those you love; have the best of times.

Yours
Yiannis.

P.S: I use a 5D Mk4 and a 5D Mk3 with magic lantern installed and i'm extremely pleased with my decision to go with the Mk4 instead of 1Dx Mk2 (i had 2 5D Mk3s, sold one of them and rolled the dice; money was not an issue for 1Dx Mk2 but resolution was as i'm a landscape photographer with some occasional BiF photography, i'm also a videographer).

 

[AlanF]

Only the least amount of alcohol before posting is advisable.

 

[pwp]

I also have 1DX & 5DIV. For action I'm more likely to reach for the 1DX. While the AF performance may be pretty close, the 1DX offers meaningful advantage with not only a much faster FPS but also a much deeper buffer which clears very very fast. Too often shooting action with the 5DIII and 5DIV, I've been frustrated with the relatively shallow buffer.

For action jobs I now take the 1DX and a surprisingly good 7DII. The 5DIV may come out of the bag if iso beyond 6400 is required.

Another consideration in favor or the 1DX for you is shutter life. The 1DX will probably still work like new with over 500k clicks but in my experience with 5DII and 5DIII has been an average shutter life of 130k. My local CPS confirms this is pretty much what you can expect. Of course there will be exceptions with reports of +500k clicks from a 5 series not unheard of. My retired 5DIII was on it's fourth shutter. As another variable shutter life consideration, a 5D (II,III,IV) shutter replacement costs less than half of a 1DX shutter replacement.

While that low mileage 1DX may look attractive, if you already have a 5DIV why not just enjoy it. Ask yourself seriously whether the 1DX is really necessary or is there a bit of GAS involved?

-pw

 

[Mikehit]

The 5DIV does indeed have the AF 'system' of the 1Dx but performance is a combination of factors: the metering sensor, the algorithms, the processors and the power to drive the lenses.
The metering sensor in the 1Dx is 100,000 pixels, in the 5DIV it is 150,000 (the 1Dx2 is 300,000). So one up to the 5DIV, but if I recall correctly the 1Dx (like the 1Dx2) has two processors, one of which is dedicated to AF. So although the algorithms in the 5DIV are improved, it would have less processing power to do all the calculations. And from reports the 1Dx also tracks better against complex targets (wildlife against a background of scrub and foliage). And the 1Dx has superior power to drive big lenses.

'Fast action' can mean different things to different people but one comment I have read is that the 1Dx is better if the subject is moving against complex background - this may not be an issue if you are close enough that it is easy to keep the AF point on the subject (such as cars or players on a football field) but will be different for birds in flight or running animals where they are smaller in the frame.
If you don't use a converter on the 100-400 then I am not sure you will see much benefit for the 1Dx other than the buffer as pwp says (which is my main frustration with the 7Dii).

If the 1Dx is a good price then if you can afford it I would say buy it and if you are not convinced you will not lose much on the resale and any loss is 'cheap hire' for a bit of fun.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I have a 5D3 and a 1DX, and here it is no-contest: the 1DX is much better than the 5D3 for fast moving subjects.

As I recall the 5D4 reviews, the 5D4 AF is better than the 5D3, but not significantly better. So my take would be that the 1DX has a better AF than the 5D4.

As for 5D3 vs 5D4 AF - I do notice a noticeable improvement in AF tracking (more consistency) which has resulted in (I think) a higher hit rate. The difference is not significant however - but I'll just say that even slightly better AF could be the difference between that ONE shot being a keeper or not, so I'll take it. I take it that's the same reason sports folks grab a 1D instead.

I went through the 5D4 vs. 1DX II scenario and I went with the former (better all-rounder, more resolution). That said, the RAW buffer can be a bit limiting and I would have liked more.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The top end Canon DSLR's have the same AF capability according to their frame rate. The reason the 1DXII has a slightly better AF system is because it has a slightly faster frame rate and needs that slightly superior capability. I've shot fast moving wild life with 5DIII's alongside 1DX's and we both got the same percentile of sharp focussed images. The difference was the number of images caught in the same burst. Interestingly, once we had all processed out images...we all had the number of keepers according to our skill and experience....not according to which camera was being used. I personally think that the frame rate and AF hike between the 1DX / 1DXII/ 5DIII and 5D4 to be marginal and skill is a bigger separator.

 

[bdunbar79]

From a sports shooter's perspective, I look at this differently. The two are light years apart in terms of reliability IMO. The 1Dx has a much larger buffer and also drives big lenses faster and with longer battery life. The 5D3 wasn't able to drive lenses' AF as fast. That is huge for me when I'm shooting a lot for long periods of time. The other thing is frame rate. No matter how you look at it, frame rate is critical to sports shooting success. Sure, with skill you can get a lot of great shots but no matter the skill, most of the peak action timing is luck anyways. With 12 fps I increase my probably that coupled with proper skill and a higher frame rate, I'm going to get a lot more peak action shots. And in my experience with the 1Dx and 5D3, this has been the case largely and why I dumped my 5D3 and got another 1Dx. But again, I'm shooting a lot of sports and not much else.

 

[ethanz]

there's probably a medical name for this.

Yes, the medical professionals here at CR call it GAS or Gear Acquisition Syndrome. The only cure I know of is an empty bank account. Some have said a wife can also cure or suppress it.

 

[privatebydesign]

There is no way on earth I'd think about swapping a 5D MkIV for a 1DX, especially for, as the OP stated, the 'action' shooting was kids and family stuff and a bit of birds in flight.

The AF of the two is very comparable, the image quality is a different league. Sure an image out of focus isn't worth any amount of image quality, but the AF is so close as to not be the biggest factor.

 

[bdunbar79]

There is no way on earth I'd think about swapping a 5D MkIV for a 1DX, especially for, as the OP stated, the 'action' shooting was kids and family stuff and a bit of birds in flight.

The AF of the two is very comparable, the image quality is a different league. Sure an image out of focus isn't worth any amount of image quality, but the AF is so close as to not be the biggest factor.

PBD, would you say then, that the IQ of the 5D4 at equal ISO values is superior to the 1Dx? If so I can certainly justify purchasing one for other sports. Thanks for your input.

 

[tpatana]

There is no way on earth I'd think about swapping a 5D MkIV for a 1DX, especially for, as the OP stated, the 'action' shooting was kids and family stuff and a bit of birds in flight.

The AF of the two is very comparable, the image quality is a different league. Sure an image out of focus isn't worth any amount of image quality, but the AF is so close as to not be the biggest factor.

PBD, would you say then, that the IQ of the 5D4 at equal ISO values is superior to the 1Dx? If so I can certainly justify purchasing one for other sports. Thanks for your input.

Yes and no. If you take full frame and resize both to say 2048px on long edge, they look identical. If you like to pixel peep at full resolution, you might see difference. Maybe. But 5D4 gives you plenty more cropping margin.

So for me, I shoot 5D4 for everything else but sports. For sports the 1DX is still king.