5D2 & 1D4 for 1DX?
- Thread starter mw
- Start date
- Status
P
PackLight
Guest
With my 1D IV my acceptable keeper rate is in the high 90 percent. You would probably get a little bit better performance but I couldn't imagine that it is a huge leap and in itself probably not worth the swap. If you have one your experience might be similar. With the 1D IV I think it comes down to the improved ISO vs the 1.3 crop.
The 5D II has a few more pixels but in every other way the 1D X is a huge leap in all other respects.
I would rather have a FF with a 1D quality AF system for general photography.
I think the only way it wouldn't be a good move is if you are a wildlife nut and don't want to give up the 1.3 crop. Right now that is my category.
The 5D II has a few more pixels but in every other way the 1D X is a huge leap in all other respects.
I would rather have a FF with a 1D quality AF system for general photography.
I think the only way it wouldn't be a good move is if you are a wildlife nut and don't want to give up the 1.3 crop. Right now that is my category.
Upvote
0
+1jrista said:
mw, before asking the question which camera or lens to get or swap, some background would help. Like PackLight said, if you shoot wildlife or even if you shoot sports 1DX is great. For me, 6fps is enough and also there is a money constraint so 5D3 works perfectly. If money was no object I would have got the 1DX...
Upvote
0
FWIW I've just swapped my 5DMk2 and 50D (and a couple of lenses) for the 1DX. I've never used a 1 series before, so the difference will be more marked for me, but I'm blown away by the 1DX. Apart from it being the heaviest object in the known universe (which I rather like) it really doesn't have a weakness.
FF is great of course. The 1.3 crop sensor was only there for sports photography basically, so the fps rate could be quick enough. With the 2 x Digic 5+ sensors (and the separate Digic 4 sensor for AF) the 12fps @ FF on the 1DX is frankly insane.
The AF is fantastic. Although it has a "mere" 18.1MP, each of those pixels merge seamlessly into its neighbours, so there are no effective noisy "borders" and therefore the low light performance is monstrous. A huge step up from the 5DMk2 ... really huge.
The latest firmware, just out, gives it the ability to AF at f8 now (previously it was f5.6 max) which is very handy for using extenders for BIF etc if that's your bag.
It seems the 1DX really is excellent at everything, with just one exception that I've found. Pocketwizards. If you do any studio or strobist stuff and rely on PWs, they haven't yet got their reverse engineering sorted on the 1DX, so they don't work. They are apparently working on it but it's not a quick fix I believe. Likely to be a couple of months yet.
Other than that, I can't fault it.
For sports, motorsports, kids rushing around, landscapes, portraits ... colours, IQ, AF ... it's got everything.
For landscapes, its sheer imagery and clarity and 3D depth and colour rendition and DR are wonderful
Those who wish to make enormous prints have indicated that a higher MP count would be better, at the risk of sacrificing some of that 12fps machine gun magic (which you may only want to ensure an even better chance of low-light handheld keepers etc) but there are plenty of others who say that using Perfect Resize (as was Genuine Fractals) will upscale any decent image to insane proportions.
Money is certainly an object with me, but despite its cost and the fact that I have to live on beans and eggs for the next 6 months, I'm totally in love with it. Master of all trades, jack of none.
FF is great of course. The 1.3 crop sensor was only there for sports photography basically, so the fps rate could be quick enough. With the 2 x Digic 5+ sensors (and the separate Digic 4 sensor for AF) the 12fps @ FF on the 1DX is frankly insane.
The AF is fantastic. Although it has a "mere" 18.1MP, each of those pixels merge seamlessly into its neighbours, so there are no effective noisy "borders" and therefore the low light performance is monstrous. A huge step up from the 5DMk2 ... really huge.
The latest firmware, just out, gives it the ability to AF at f8 now (previously it was f5.6 max) which is very handy for using extenders for BIF etc if that's your bag.
It seems the 1DX really is excellent at everything, with just one exception that I've found. Pocketwizards. If you do any studio or strobist stuff and rely on PWs, they haven't yet got their reverse engineering sorted on the 1DX, so they don't work. They are apparently working on it but it's not a quick fix I believe. Likely to be a couple of months yet.
Other than that, I can't fault it.
For sports, motorsports, kids rushing around, landscapes, portraits ... colours, IQ, AF ... it's got everything.
For landscapes, its sheer imagery and clarity and 3D depth and colour rendition and DR are wonderful
Those who wish to make enormous prints have indicated that a higher MP count would be better, at the risk of sacrificing some of that 12fps machine gun magic (which you may only want to ensure an even better chance of low-light handheld keepers etc) but there are plenty of others who say that using Perfect Resize (as was Genuine Fractals) will upscale any decent image to insane proportions.
Money is certainly an object with me, but despite its cost and the fact that I have to live on beans and eggs for the next 6 months, I'm totally in love with it. Master of all trades, jack of none.
Upvote
0
mw said:jrista said:
I am a photo and video enthusiast, so I am learning my way through sport, nature, portrait, and macro photography. Loving every minute of it, btw
Well, if you are learning, then buying a camera that costs seven grand might not be the best use of your money. If you were a pro at certain types of photography, it would make sense to get the best camera for those types of photography. As an enthusiast "learning" your way through all kinds of photography, at that stage I think your money is probably much better spent on less expensive camera bodies, and invested longer-term in lenses. Camera bodies come and go, and with competition heating up, they could well come and go at a much faster rate. Hell, you might be able to pick up a 1D X for a grand less in a year, you can never know these days.
For a jack of all photography, I would think a 5D III, with its higher density sensor and well rounded set of features, is probably a better camera for you.
Upvote
0
I went out on a shoot with one of the worlds top photographers. Comparing pics i can say this.
The good:
The x sounds amazing. Maybe only two more frames but it sure sounds good.
The high ISO when the light went is better on the x. No doubt about it. The 4 isnt bad at all but the x has the edge. And yes it is noticable in low light prints.
The x has the edge in autofocus. He got a few more keepers. And its a shade faster.
The pics had a deeper richness is all i can say.
All those bits do add up.
The Average:
Cant say i could notice a hugh differance in the pics side by side unless its in poor light. Maybe a little more "richer" and a tad nicer bokeh unless he was using the extender which leads me to....
The bad
He had a 1x4 extender on every shot. The reach just was'nt there with both of us using 500 lens's. No doubt the 4 was king here.
So in using both id say that all the small improvements of the x really do add up to a worthy winner and in low light you will notice a differance but "normal" lower iso's theres not to much of a differance but again the x has the edge. Its a bit like comparing my 7D to the 4 pics. I thought the 7 was excellent but side by side the 4's pics look that bit better and the x against the 4 is the same. But if you need reach, keep the 4. I need reach so im keeping the 4. But if i needed one camera for everything then id have a 1DX no doubt. It is that good. And im the worlds most scheptical upgrader so it must be good.
The good:
The x sounds amazing. Maybe only two more frames but it sure sounds good.
The high ISO when the light went is better on the x. No doubt about it. The 4 isnt bad at all but the x has the edge. And yes it is noticable in low light prints.
The x has the edge in autofocus. He got a few more keepers. And its a shade faster.
The pics had a deeper richness is all i can say.
All those bits do add up.
The Average:
Cant say i could notice a hugh differance in the pics side by side unless its in poor light. Maybe a little more "richer" and a tad nicer bokeh unless he was using the extender which leads me to....
The bad
He had a 1x4 extender on every shot. The reach just was'nt there with both of us using 500 lens's. No doubt the 4 was king here.
So in using both id say that all the small improvements of the x really do add up to a worthy winner and in low light you will notice a differance but "normal" lower iso's theres not to much of a differance but again the x has the edge. Its a bit like comparing my 7D to the 4 pics. I thought the 7 was excellent but side by side the 4's pics look that bit better and the x against the 4 is the same. But if you need reach, keep the 4. I need reach so im keeping the 4. But if i needed one camera for everything then id have a 1DX no doubt. It is that good. And im the worlds most scheptical upgrader so it must be good.
Upvote
0
Some people are caught up on the 1.3x factor of the Mk4... it is a factor you should consider. I went from 7Ds to a 5D3 (my X's weren't here yet...) just to make the transition... and now I have two 1DXs and my second 5D3 is on it's way... they are fantastic cameras, I cannot say enough positive things about them... but it has changed my lens selection for pretty much everything.... your transition from 1.3 to FF isn't quite as bad as 1.6 to FF but there's still a factor.
I would think a lot about that before you make the jump.
I would think a lot about that before you make the jump.
Upvote
0
Mick said:
You do realize that the v1.1.1 firmware for the 1D X brought back f/8 AF, right? So you could easily slap that 1.4x TC on the 500mm f/4, and get 700mm f/8. In which case the 1D X would maintain the lead in all cases.
Upvote
0
I had Canon EOS 1Ds III. Since two months, I had canon 1Dx. This DSLR is very impressive.
Great quality High iso, autofocus of hell and solid DSLR. 8)
Great quality High iso, autofocus of hell and solid DSLR. 8)
Upvote
0
PackLight said:jrista said:
Well he could do that...or he could shoot it at 700mm f/5.6 as well if he wanted. I think you meant slap on the 2x TC and shoot at 1000mm f/8
Yup, I meant 2x 1000mm f/8. Sorry.
Upvote
0
Secretariat said:
Yeah, I mean, why have two seperate cameras when one will do the job of both models? You can only take one photo at a time
.
Upvote
0
ronderick said:
+ 1 unless your earning big time from your cameras then a jump to 1DX will be nothing for your wallet and then the benefits will far outweigh the costs.
Upvote
0
- Status
