Canon 1DX vs 5DIII Wildlife Comparison

[CarlTN]

East Wind Photography, regarding your issue with the shutter noise of the 1DX. I can certainly understand wanting it quieter. However, if that were the only issue, couldn't you simply try one of the noise reducing guards or wraps that are available? (I know it wasn't the only issue, of course...and obviously having to use a noise guard of some kind, would be more of a hassle than not using one.)

Given your choice of shooting in decent light, and your lack of a real need for anything faster than 6fps, I can certainly see why you would opt for a 5D3 over the 1DX, especially given the price difference. Which kind of gets me back to...why would you even try a 1DX at all?

It seems to me, that buying a 1DX and not using it for its intended purposes, makes about as much sense as buying a sports car, as many of the doctors and lawyers do...but only getting black or silver paint, and never going over the speed limit. They want to show that they have a car that others would envy, but they won't use it for its intended purpose, and they choose an understated color to blend into the crowd...because otherwise their hospitals and law firms would think they were trying to stray from their wives.

I could be reading a bit too much into this, and the analogy isn't all that good I guess...sorry!

Pictured here is a small bird I shot the other day center-cropped out of the original 4752 pixel width, down to 1812 pixels, and then reduced to 1050 pixels in width (I admit the reduction down to 1050 is obviously helping it). But still, this is basically only 38% of the full field of view of the original image. Shot through a window pane, handheld at only 1/320 sec, FF equivalent 320mm, with my lowly 5 year old crop camera, and my 70-200 f/4, at f/4 and 200mm. ISO 1600 (higher than your self-limited ISO 1000 on your much better, newer, bigger, more expensive, more masculine camera and lenses). The little bird was very cold in the wind, so I guess they puff out to stay warm. I would too! Instead I chose to stay in the warm and shoot through glass...and attempt to deal with rather terrible image softness.

(My poor attempt at trying to sharpen notwithstanding), I'm sure the grain itself is far below your taste, but it's only barely worse than the limit of my taste. (Yes I went through 3 total stages of NR, first in ACR, then at full size in PS, then again at reduced size in PS...!). Obviously the composition itself isn't worthy of anyone wanting to display it. I have other wildlife shots that I feel, are worthy (not many are birds). I just don't have my own website yet, or enough knowledge about how to go about marketing them. At some point I'll figure it out.

My point though, is that I could get the same amount of grain at ISO 12,800, if not higher, on a 1DX. Quite possibly even ISO 16,000...So down at ISO 1000 with 1DX or 5D3, that's really like going 20mph on the interstate, in that gull gray Ferrari 458 Italia...

 

[AlanF]

I know you are presenting the bird photo as a rough and ready example and not for publication. You could never get that accepted on the birdpix site for at least 2 reasons: the noise is horrible; it is also over-sharpened as most clearly seen from the tell-tale white lines around the beak. There is also a loss of fine detail from NR. I "upgraded" (or rather got a second camera) from 7D to 5D III for two reasons: the lower noise gives a higher proportion of acceptable photos that do not lose detail because of NR; and the higher number of keepers because of more reliable autofocus. Under good conditions, the 7D is just as good as the 5D III and can be even better because of its longer reach. If I got a 1DX I might be able to make a tiny incremental increase in the number of keepers over the 5D III, but I am not a pro and the difference will make very little difference to me.

 

[CarlTN]

Alan, thanks for your input, but read all of my post, especially the part in bold. It was shot through a window pane...hence the oversharpening. It's also a tremendous crop. Keep in mind, if this were an uncropped print, it would be at least 27x40 inches in size (although obviously the dpi of your monitor is larger than the dpi of a print...if you could somehow view it on a monitor that could have 300 ppi, then the image you're looking at is either a whole lot smaller than the one I'm looking at, or else it is being scaled up).

I wouldn't say the noise is horrible, it's just a ways above what my least acceptable noise is, for myself personally. As far as whatever bird website you're talking about, I could care less.

As I said, I presented this as an example of what the noise would be at a much higher level than this, on either a 1DX or 5D3. So ISO 1000 on either of those, would be radically low by comparison. And yet, somehow even that is "too much" for some people.

Here is another shot, that is not cropped, at the same ISO 1600, same camera, same 200mm, at f.6.3 since it is so much closer...hence it fills the field of view more. Still shot through a window pane. See much noise or sharpening artifacts there? The pale line on the top of this beak, is a reflection of the sky on the beak...The eye, much of the body, the feet, are all in focus.

Compositionally it's not great, the bird is not exotic, the lighting, the location, none of that is worthy of a bird snob website. But this isn't a bird snob website. The full size image has similar noise to the above shot, it's just masked due to the higher downsampling...obviously.

 

[sanj]

Without getting into details, FOR ME 1dx rules totally when it comes to wildlife photography. I have spent months in Africa and India with both 3 and X and find that there is NO comparison between the two cameras when it comes to ease of shooting.

But yes, I cannot see any IQ difference between them in normal light situations.

 

[jrista]

I know you are presenting the bird photo as a rough and ready example and not for publication. You could never get that accepted on the birdpix site for at least 2 reasons: the noise is horrible; it is also over-sharpened as most clearly seen from the tell-tale white lines around the beak. There is also a loss of fine detail from NR.

Actually, there is only one problem with that photo: not enough pixels on subject. It wouldn't matter if that photo was shot at ISO 3200 on a 7D...if the subject had filled the frame and did not require cropping, scaling down to web size alone would have eliminated a considerable amount of noise, and sharpened the image to an acceptable level. Less NR would have been needed to make that photo acceptable after that. I'd offer that simply moving up to a 400mm lens would have done the trick, as that would have quadrupled the size of the subject in the frame (subject size is the square of the difference in focal lengths, so (400/200)^2 = 4).

 

[bdunbar79]

jrista,

That's exactly why I moved up to the 400 f/2.8 from the 300 f/2.8 for football.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Why would I try a 1DX in the first place? Because CPS lets me borrow equipment for free. Why wouldn't I want to try it out? CPS is an awesome service and if you qualify I encourage you to sign up.

Are your attempting to compare 1DX ISO 12800 to the 5D3 ISO 1000? If that's the case there is no comparison the 5D3 at ISO 1000 won out in my tests. 12800 has it's purpose but for feather splitting clarity and no noise it did not meet my standards of IQ. But I am pretty tight on my standards and others might accept less for their particular purpose. I agree that in some cases the 1DX would have improved noise, but for most wildlife purposes it's probably not noticeable in the end, especially after post processing each. If you are talking about shooting in the dark in bad lighting then that's another story.

Also regarding your Ferarri...It doesn't help you much if you drive it in LA all the time. You can only go as fast as the car in front of you. Those that own one will always certainly try to justify their purchase by saying that it can go from 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds and can outrun any vehicle. so what? If you can only go as fast as the car in front of you then why spend the $$$? Buy a chevy instead!

I feel a lot of people here are trying to justify their 6K purchase. If the 1DX were not available, everyone would be praising the 5DIII as the best camera over the rest of the Canon line. However, I am not saying that the 5DIII is better than the 1DX. I am saying that it was designed for other purposes and for most wildlife purposes the 5DIII would be more than acceptable if you could live without 12fps and I can, especially if I have to sacrifice noise levels at 12fps. If you are on an African safari riding on top of an off road vehicle then maybe you can live with the RAT TAT TAT rapid fire noise. with the 1DX I might as well have not even been in a blind as everything around me new I was there just by the noise.

Also I'll note that I am not a big fan of shooting in bad light. The 1DX may be very good at shooting in bad light but bad light is bad light and chances of getting a keeper is far less than with good light. I consider sunrise and sunset lighting good light provided there is some direct sun on the subject. In those instances I've never had an issue getting the 5D3 to perform even BIF.

Perhaps it's more forgiving with the 1DX. I cant really say as most of my shots between the two models were comparable. IQ alone I was not getting anything for that extra $3K. That is MY opinion and others have theirs and that's fine. Everyone has their expectations based on their needs.

East Wind Photography, regarding your issue with the shutter noise of the 1DX. I can certainly understand wanting it quieter. However, if that were the only issue, couldn't you simply try one of the noise reducing guards or wraps that are available? (I know it wasn't the only issue, of course...and obviously having to use a noise guard of some kind, would be more of a hassle than not using one.)

Given your choice of shooting in decent light, and your lack of a real need for anything faster than 6fps, I can certainly see why you would opt for a 5D3 over the 1DX, especially given the price difference. Which kind of gets me back to...why would you even try a 1DX at all?

It seems to me, that buying a 1DX and not using it for its intended purposes, makes about as much sense as buying a sports car, as many of the doctors and lawyers do...but only getting black or silver paint, and never going over the speed limit. They want to show that they have a car that others would envy, but they won't use it for its intended purpose, and they choose an understated color to blend into the crowd...because otherwise their hospitals and law firms would think they were trying to stray from their wives.

I could be reading a bit too much into this, and the analogy isn't all that good I guess...sorry!

Pictured here is a small bird I shot the other day center-cropped out of the original 4752 pixel width, down to 1812 pixels, and then reduced to 1050 pixels in width (I admit the reduction down to 1050 is obviously helping it). But still, this is basically only 38% of the full field of view of the original image. Shot through a window pane, handheld at only 1/320 sec, FF equivalent 320mm, with my lowly 5 year old crop camera, and my 70-200 f/4, at f/4 and 200mm. ISO 1600 (higher than your self-limited ISO 1000 on your much better, newer, bigger, more expensive, more masculine camera and lenses). The little bird was very cold in the wind, so I guess they puff out to stay warm. I would too! Instead I chose to stay in the warm and shoot through glass...and attempt to deal with rather terrible image softness.

(My poor attempt at trying to sharpen notwithstanding), I'm sure the grain itself is far below your taste, but it's only barely worse than the limit of my taste. (Yes I went through 3 total stages of NR, first in ACR, then at full size in PS, then again at reduced size in PS...!). Obviously the composition itself isn't worthy of anyone wanting to display it. I have other wildlife shots that I feel, are worthy (not many are birds). I just don't have my own website yet, or enough knowledge about how to go about marketing them. At some point I'll figure it out.

My point though, is that I could get the same amount of grain at ISO 12,800, if not higher, on a 1DX. Quite possibly even ISO 16,000...So down at ISO 1000 with 1DX or 5D3, that's really like going 20mph on the interstate, in that gull gray Ferrari 458 Italia...

 

[East Wind Photography]

And why I moved up to a 600 F/4 for wildlife! I cant imagine using the 600 f/4 to shoot football though. I will admit I still use the 300 2.8 to shoot soccer as it's lighter and I can move around easier than with the 400 2.8.

jrista,

That's exactly why I moved up to the 400 f/2.8 from the 300 f/2.8 for football.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I didn't notice any slowdown either, I simply decided to recharge at 50% as I didn't want to risk running out in the field considering I only got two days worth of shooting in prior to that. I honestly could have just taken the 2nd battery with me.

Originally my point was that I got two days with the 1DX battery and get 2 weeks with the 5DIII and two batteries in the battery grip. Why the big difference? I dont know. There are lots of possibilities but 2 days vs two weeks is a BIG difference regardless. all of my shooting was with a 600 f4 with and without the 1.4iii extender.

I too have noticed no slowdown at 1DX battery percentages down to 20%. At a recent surfing event I shot 1200 frames in the day and the battery was fine.

There is also something I ca't quite put my finger on about using the 1DX ...

Well yes I can, actually. I'm with bdunbar on this ... the camera is simply astonishing. It should be illegal. It can recover images that really shouldn't be allowed, if you're as crap as me. 12fps can get you the money shot which you could just miss at 6fps. And it feels pornographic in your hand.

The only downside to me is that shutter noise. It really does clatter. Using the 5D3 (or 5D2 or 50D) feels like you're using a wonderful and quiet toy in comparison. Aside from the noise (which has scared birds) it is truly insane. And it will pick up that just-scared bird and catch in in flight like no other camera you've ever used

And I'm sorry if this sounds over-protective too! But it is that good

 

[jrista]

Why would I try a 1DX in the first place? Because CPS lets me borrow equipment for free. Why wouldn't I want to try it out? CPS is an awesome service and if you qualify I encourage you to sign up.

Personally, I'd LOVE to use CPS, but I don't make enough money off of my photography to do so. The requirements seem pretty stringent...you basically have to be a full-time pro photographer to qualify (at least, in the US.)

Are your attempting to compare 1DX ISO 12800 to the 5D3 ISO 1000? If that's the case there is no comparison the 5D3 at ISO 1000 won out in my tests. 12800 has it's purpose but for feather splitting clarity and no noise it did not meet my standards of IQ. But I am pretty tight on my standards and others might accept less for their particular purpose. I agree that in some cases the 1DX would have improved noise, but for most wildlife purposes it's probably not noticeable in the end, especially after post processing each. If you are talking about shooting in the dark in bad lighting then that's another story.

I would guess you did not spend much time actually shooting at ISO settings above 6400. Based on what I've seen and read in reviews, the 1D X is really mind blowing at high ISO. The 5D III may start belching out blotchy chroma noise around ISO 6400, but the 1D X still pumps out clean noise and a ton of detail through ISO 16,000 or more.

Here is a shot from Any Rouse's blog, where he reviews the 1D X. Given how my 7D performs, I'd have called this ISO 1600. It is actually ISO 16,000...yes, sixteen thousand. Despite that, the feather detail is amazing, and the quality of the noise is superb:

Read the review to learn more about the difficult scenarios Andy photographed in. It might change your mind a bit on the 1D X, and it's unique world-class high ISO performance. Now, I do believe Andy used the best of the best lenses, so he was really packing on the pixels...but that is kind of the price you pay if you want the best of the best.

I feel a lot of people here are trying to justify their 6K purchase. If the 1DX were not available, everyone would be praising the 5DIII as the best camera over the rest of the Canon line. However, I am not saying that the 5DIII is better than the 1DX. I am saying that it was designed for other purposes and for most wildlife purposes the 5DIII would be more than acceptable if you could live without 12fps and I can, especially if I have to sacrifice noise levels at 12fps. If you are on an African safari riding on top of an off road vehicle then maybe you can live with the RAT TAT TAT rapid fire noise. with the 1DX I might as well have not even been in a blind as everything around me new I was there just by the noise.

Also I'll note that I am not a big fan of shooting in bad light. The 1DX may be very good at shooting in bad light but bad light is bad light and chances of getting a keeper is far less than with good light. I consider sunrise and sunset lighting good light provided there is some direct sun on the subject. In those instances I've never had an issue getting the 5D3 to perform even BIF.

Yes, the 1D X was designed to excel in "bad" light. It was also designed to excel in pretty much every other kind of light as well. Given the quality of Andy Rouse's shots, I'd say the 1D X is just as good for wildlife and birds as it is for sports. I'd also offer the fact that Art Morris uses the 1D X almost exclusively for his bird photography, which is some of the best in the world, and the quality of his work is second to none....high detail, even at obscenely high ISO settings.

You are right, however, that the 5D III is absolutely no slouch. If you are interested in saving money, and interested in something quieter, I totally agree that the 5D III is an ideal alternative, if not the better option in a considerable number of cases. Personally, I think I'll be getting a 5D III instead of a 1D X, at least for the foreseeable future (I'd like to pick up a 1D X when they are a bit cheaper.) I can also rent a 1D X if I think I need the features it offers, and bring along my 5D III as a backup.

 

[bdunbar79]

Nope. If the 1DX weren't out, I'd be shooting with my 1D Mark IV. Can still push RAW files harder with 1D4 vs. 5D3. The crop factor was also amazing. For wildlife, the 1D4 is really the best, probably better than the 1DX. Yes we do justify our $6799 purchase, but not with words.

 

[jrista]

Nope. If the 1DX weren't out, I'd be shooting with my 1D Mark IV. Can still push RAW files harder with 1D4 vs. 5D3. The crop factor was also amazing. For wildlife, the 1D4 is really the best, probably better than the 1DX. Yes we do justify our $6799 purchase, but not with words.

True, I'd take a 1D IV as an alternative to the 1D X as well, and would also use one ahead of the 5D III. I guess I consider the 1D IV a secondary alternative now that is no longer being manufactured, though.

 

[East Wind Photography]

There is no verification anymore of pro status. You just answer a few questions. The rest is based on a point system and depends on how much Canon stuff you own. If you have enough for Gold status you can borrow equipment. Gold is 100.00 a year and Platinum is 500.00 a year. There are other perks the biggest is a couple of free cleanings per year and SUBSTANTIAL discounts for repairs and associated parts. I had IS replaced on my 300 2.8 due to spill I took and that one repair paid for the CPS fee for the next two years. So I am taking advantage of the evaluations.

So back to the noise and the example you showed. To me that noise would not be acceptable in a 20x30 enlargement. Downscaled for the web, offset printed in a book or a calendar yes it would be acceptable as the noise would be lost in the printing or downscaling process.

I did note also that it seemed the noise patterns on the 5DIII were smaller than the 1DX I assume it's due to the 5DIII being 22MP instead of 18. I could in fact with post processing reduce most of the noise to equal that as shown on the example. As noted the 5Diii is no slouch and definitely would expect that the 1DX would have less noise and better contrast at even higher ISOs. But is that much noise really acceptable? It depends on what you want to do with the image and what you as a photographer are willing to accept in your work.

Why would I try a 1DX in the first place? Because CPS lets me borrow equipment for free. Why wouldn't I want to try it out? CPS is an awesome service and if you qualify I encourage you to sign up.

Personally, I'd LOVE to use CPS, but I don't make enough money off of my photography to do so. The requirements seem pretty stringent...you basically have to be a full-time pro photographer to qualify (at least, in the US.)

Are your attempting to compare 1DX ISO 12800 to the 5D3 ISO 1000? If that's the case there is no comparison the 5D3 at ISO 1000 won out in my tests. 12800 has it's purpose but for feather splitting clarity and no noise it did not meet my standards of IQ. But I am pretty tight on my standards and others might accept less for their particular purpose. I agree that in some cases the 1DX would have improved noise, but for most wildlife purposes it's probably not noticeable in the end, especially after post processing each. If you are talking about shooting in the dark in bad lighting then that's another story.

I would guess you did not spend much time actually shooting at ISO settings above 6400. Based on what I've seen and read in reviews, the 1D X is really mind blowing at high ISO. The 5D III may start belching out blotchy chroma noise around ISO 6400, but the 1D X still pumps out clean noise and a ton of detail through ISO 16,000 or more.

Here is a shot from Any Rouse's blog, where he reviews the 1D X. Given how my 7D performs, I'd have called this ISO 1600. It is actually ISO 16,000...yes, sixteen thousand. Despite that, the feather detail is amazing, and the quality of the noise is superb:

Read the review to learn more about the difficult scenarios Andy photographed in. It might change your mind a bit on the 1D X, and it's unique world-class high ISO performance. Now, I do believe Andy used the best of the best lenses, so he was really packing on the pixels...but that is kind of the price you pay if you want the best of the best.

I feel a lot of people here are trying to justify their 6K purchase. If the 1DX were not available, everyone would be praising the 5DIII as the best camera over the rest of the Canon line. However, I am not saying that the 5DIII is better than the 1DX. I am saying that it was designed for other purposes and for most wildlife purposes the 5DIII would be more than acceptable if you could live without 12fps and I can, especially if I have to sacrifice noise levels at 12fps. If you are on an African safari riding on top of an off road vehicle then maybe you can live with the RAT TAT TAT rapid fire noise. with the 1DX I might as well have not even been in a blind as everything around me new I was there just by the noise.

Also I'll note that I am not a big fan of shooting in bad light. The 1DX may be very good at shooting in bad light but bad light is bad light and chances of getting a keeper is far less than with good light. I consider sunrise and sunset lighting good light provided there is some direct sun on the subject. In those instances I've never had an issue getting the 5D3 to perform even BIF.

Yes, the 1D X was designed to excel in "bad" light. It was also designed to excel in pretty much every other kind of light as well. Given the quality of Andy Rouse's shots, I'd say the 1D X is just as good for wildlife and birds as it is for sports. I'd also offer the fact that Art Morris uses the 1D X almost exclusively for his bird photography, which is some of the best in the world, and the quality of his work is second to none....high detail, even at obscenely high ISO settings.

You are right, however, that the 5D III is absolutely no slouch. If you are interested in saving money, and interested in something quieter, I totally agree that the 5D III is an ideal alternative, if not the better option in a considerable number of cases. Personally, I think I'll be getting a 5D III instead of a 1D X, at least for the foreseeable future (I'd like to pick up a 1D X when they are a bit cheaper.) I can also rent a 1D X if I think I need the features it offers, and bring along my 5D III as a backup.

 

[bdunbar79]

I agree with the resolution of the 5D3. If I shoot an event and need to crop heavily portions of my shots, the 5D3 is way better. I always keep it on me everywhere I go, even when shooting with the 1DX. I did a baby event with the 5D3 and it worked out fantastic, because I did some heavy crops with a close-up of the baby's face when I could not get physically closer. The 5D3 files also clean up very nicely with NR and retain a LOT of detail.

 

[CarlTN]

Jrista, the noise in your cropped picture is godawful, it made me vomit...keep up the good work!

I've tried 400mm lenses, and am considering buying one. What you said about the downsampling is just common knowledge, and hence why I posted the second shot, which was from the same time and day.

As for buying a 400 f/2.8, it would be cheaper to hire a couple of world class wildlife photographers at my whim, and just print their best results. I'll be moving up to a used Porsche before I move up to spending $12,000 on a lens to shoot birds that photo snobs will still laugh at.

Um, East Wind Photography, since you aren't even bothering to read my post, I won't read yours either. The short answer is:

"Are your attempting to compare 1DX ISO 12800 to the 5D3 ISO 1000?"

NO, NO SIR I AM NOT DOING THAT. I am not a fool, but thanks for thinking I am one. That's nice. :

 

[jrista]

Jrista, the noise in your cropped picture is godawful, it made me vomit...keep up the good work!

LOL, the picture of the Owl is not mine, it was taken by Andy Rouse, a well-known and respected wildlife photographer around the world. Also, don't forget, that photo is ISO 16,000! Not 1600, but sixteen thousand. Also keep in mind that it is clean luminance noise...no chroma in sight. The photo had ZERO noise reduction (zero post-processing at all, as far as I know). With nothing but LR4, I could clean that photo up such that it looked half as noisy or less, without any detrimental softening.

It could probably be printed it at 17x20 as well, and I bet it would look great.

Here is the full image, and a 50% crop:

Admittedly, these are web size shots from a professional photographer with the best gear imaginable...but still, ISO 16000! I don't think anyone even dreamed they could get a shot like that at ISO 6400 four years ago, let alone at ISO 16000. If I downscale my 7D images to the same size (which is also 18mp), a shot at ISO 1600 MIGHT look this good...probably a bit softer. At ISO 3200 I could definitely see the noise at this size. At ISO 6400, even at web size the image would probably be unusable (assuming they were taken in the same light as Andy Rouse took his photos of this owl.) So, while the noise may seem like shit at 100% crop...it is at least as good as if not better than 1/10th the ISO on a 7D.

 

[chauncey]

I've used a Ds3 for years and I wonder...were you to throw the, hopefully coming, new 7D into the equation...how would you feel then?

 

[expatinasia]

There is no verification anymore of pro status. You just answer a few questions. The rest is based on a point system and depends on how much Canon stuff you own. If you have enough for Gold status you can borrow equipment. Gold is 100.00 a year and Platinum is 500.00 a year.

CPS. This isn't entirely true, though it may be in certain areas. The requirements for CPS, and especially their verification system, varies per country (at least in terms of how they enforce it etc). I know where I am, they definitely wanted proof of pro status. I have had medical examinations that were less painful!! ;D

 

[RMC33]

There is no verification anymore of pro status. You just answer a few questions. The rest is based on a point system and depends on how much Canon stuff you own. If you have enough for Gold status you can borrow equipment. Gold is 100.00 a year and Platinum is 500.00 a year.

CPS. This isn't entirely true, though it may be in certain areas. The requirements for CPS, and especially their verification system, varies per country (at least in terms of how they enforce it etc). I know where I am, they definitely wanted proof of pro status. I have had medical examinations that were less painful!! ;D

Show me on the doll where CPS touched you!

 

[East Wind Photography]

There is no point speculating in this thread about a product that still is only a rumor. Therefore it has no basis for comparison. The topic was a 1DX vs 5diii comparison. Plenty of other threads discussing vaporware.

Though I will say if or when the 7DII is released I will be one of the first in line for a CPS eval.

I've used a Ds3 for years and I wonder...were you to throw the, hopefully coming, new 7D into the equation...how would you feel then?