Canon 1DX vs 5DIII Wildlife Comparison
- Thread starter East Wind Photography
- Start date
- Status
Thank you so much for the feedback, EWP. As someone in the market for a good birding camera, I've been considering the merits of both the 5D III and 1D X. I really don't want to spend the kind of money I would have to on the 1D X, as I am primarily a hobbyist, with a sale of a print every great once in a while. Your opinion on the 1D X shutter sound might be sealing the deal for the 5D III...I think a quiet shutter would be very helpful when it comes to shooting jittery birds up close (even within a blind).
I did want to comment on one thing, though. Regarding ISO:
This is not really surprising. The improvements in ISO are really only going to be apparent at higher ISO settings. While the improvement in full well capacity for the 1D X, thanks to the larger pixels and higher Q.E. (47%) over past-generation sensors (which were closer to 25-38%), will result in the same absolute improvement at all ISO settings, however the relative improvement will increase as ISO is increased, thanks to the nature of photon shot noise. At lower ISO settings, a well-exposed (ETTRed) photo will have roughly the same absolute differences in pixel saturation for a given tone as at higher ISO settings, however because the maximum saturation is lower by orders of magnitude at say ISO 12800 than at ISO 100, those same absolute differences become much larger relative differences, and appear to result in far more noise.
At ISO 3200, for example, the 1D X has a three-fold advantage over my 7D. The 7D is quite noisy at ISO 3200, but the 1D X is incredibly clear. From the bird photography I've seen that was taken with the 1D X, photos taken at ISO 16000 to 25600 appear to be about as noisy as ISO 3200 on my 7D. That is nearly a three-fold improvement in high ISO performance (and probably more so, given the much better editing and noise removal latitude that the 1D series has historically offered over lesser models.) I would be willing to bet that you could push ISO to 6400 or more in your work, and in comparison to older cameras you have used the 1D X would fare increasingly better as ISO was increased.
I did want to comment on one thing, though. Regarding ISO:
East Wind Photography said:
This is not really surprising. The improvements in ISO are really only going to be apparent at higher ISO settings. While the improvement in full well capacity for the 1D X, thanks to the larger pixels and higher Q.E. (47%) over past-generation sensors (which were closer to 25-38%), will result in the same absolute improvement at all ISO settings, however the relative improvement will increase as ISO is increased, thanks to the nature of photon shot noise. At lower ISO settings, a well-exposed (ETTRed) photo will have roughly the same absolute differences in pixel saturation for a given tone as at higher ISO settings, however because the maximum saturation is lower by orders of magnitude at say ISO 12800 than at ISO 100, those same absolute differences become much larger relative differences, and appear to result in far more noise.
At ISO 3200, for example, the 1D X has a three-fold advantage over my 7D. The 7D is quite noisy at ISO 3200, but the 1D X is incredibly clear. From the bird photography I've seen that was taken with the 1D X, photos taken at ISO 16000 to 25600 appear to be about as noisy as ISO 3200 on my 7D. That is nearly a three-fold improvement in high ISO performance (and probably more so, given the much better editing and noise removal latitude that the 1D series has historically offered over lesser models.) I would be willing to bet that you could push ISO to 6400 or more in your work, and in comparison to older cameras you have used the 1D X would fare increasingly better as ISO was increased.
Upvote
0
Jrista, well said, although regarding ISO, I did mention that in my critique of his findings.
It really all just depends on if you want to use NR in post, or not. If you're spending the kind of money we're talking about here, but you "can't be bothered" to spend much time in post...then you're really just playing, and not doing serious work, or worse...not making full use of the tools you've bought.
Oh, and Jrista, regarding what you said in another thread about the native ISO, and how the settings above that are fake...I always knew that. However, isn't the RAW file storing more bits of information at the time of capture, if those settings are used to boost the exposure level up to normal...as compared to underexposing at the time of capture at a lower ISO setting (and then boosting exposure by 3 or 4 stops in post)?
I.e., if you don't use the boosted ISO at capture, then the file that gets stored, is smaller than a resulting file where the boost was used to bring the exposure up to what the camera says is normal. (The file size goes from say 20MB, down to 12MB or less).
I mean, otherwise, what's the point of ever trying to get the exposure right at capture? You're saying that you have to get the exposure right at capture, except when using an ISO that is above the native? I don't understand how this could be, since the file that gets stored, has less information, if it is underexposed by 4 stops. Sure that information is stored based on a boosted sensor's output (thus you are seeing a reduced dynamic range from the sensor, with all the other unwanted artifacts)...but the file itself has more bits, does it not?
It really all just depends on if you want to use NR in post, or not. If you're spending the kind of money we're talking about here, but you "can't be bothered" to spend much time in post...then you're really just playing, and not doing serious work, or worse...not making full use of the tools you've bought.
Oh, and Jrista, regarding what you said in another thread about the native ISO, and how the settings above that are fake...I always knew that. However, isn't the RAW file storing more bits of information at the time of capture, if those settings are used to boost the exposure level up to normal...as compared to underexposing at the time of capture at a lower ISO setting (and then boosting exposure by 3 or 4 stops in post)?
I.e., if you don't use the boosted ISO at capture, then the file that gets stored, is smaller than a resulting file where the boost was used to bring the exposure up to what the camera says is normal. (The file size goes from say 20MB, down to 12MB or less).
I mean, otherwise, what's the point of ever trying to get the exposure right at capture? You're saying that you have to get the exposure right at capture, except when using an ISO that is above the native? I don't understand how this could be, since the file that gets stored, has less information, if it is underexposed by 4 stops. Sure that information is stored based on a boosted sensor's output (thus you are seeing a reduced dynamic range from the sensor, with all the other unwanted artifacts)...but the file itself has more bits, does it not?
Upvote
0
Awesome! On the ISO topic I didn't find the differences between the 1DX and 5DIII to be so significant to really make much difference. I took a number of shots with both at sunset and some after the sun went down. I ran the ISO up to 3200 and the noise on the 1DX was not much better than the 5DIII and in fact the noise patterns on the 1DX images were larger and more difficult to make them less obvious.
For those that like to shoot at higher ISO's, go for it but I found the IQ even on the 1DX to be sub par for anything other than an image that would be offset printed. It is vastly improved over the 7D and earlier models. However my comparison was with the 5DIII as both already blow the doors off the 7D and earlier models.
I totally understand those who enjoy shooting in low light and the 1DX and 5DIII open up the possibilities...However, the IQ above ISO1000 on either (vastly improved) over 7D and 5DII, still does not provide the level of quality that I could enlarge and hang on my wall. It's personal preference but I can tell you that my customers enjoy no grain 20x30's more than ones that are noisy taken at ISO1000 or higher.
So for someone who wants the best value for their dollar I would recommend the 5DIII.
For those that like to shoot at higher ISO's, go for it but I found the IQ even on the 1DX to be sub par for anything other than an image that would be offset printed. It is vastly improved over the 7D and earlier models. However my comparison was with the 5DIII as both already blow the doors off the 7D and earlier models.
I totally understand those who enjoy shooting in low light and the 1DX and 5DIII open up the possibilities...However, the IQ above ISO1000 on either (vastly improved) over 7D and 5DII, still does not provide the level of quality that I could enlarge and hang on my wall. It's personal preference but I can tell you that my customers enjoy no grain 20x30's more than ones that are noisy taken at ISO1000 or higher.
So for someone who wants the best value for their dollar I would recommend the 5DIII.
jrista said:
Upvote
0
I guess I'm lost then. I don't notice ANY noise problems with the 1DX and I routinely shoot ISO 5000. Do you post process??
Upvote
0
I may be cynical, but I get the feeling the OP would have found in favour of the 5D Mark III no matter what. In fact, it is almost as if he started this thread just to say he prefers the 5D Mark III.
But here is what I find strange:
1) Says 12 fps is excessive.
2) AFMAs on a moving subject
3) Compares ISOs when at 1,000
I forget what else. Something definitely smells fishy, but that is just mho.
But here is what I find strange:
1) Says 12 fps is excessive.
2) AFMAs on a moving subject
3) Compares ISOs when at 1,000
I forget what else. Something definitely smells fishy, but that is just mho.
Upvote
0
Yep as described earlier I use PS CS5 and shoot everything in RAW. Just to be honest I routinely also use my 5DIII at ISO's higher than 5000 but not for wildlife. I generally try to fill the frame as much as possible in such situations to reduce the size of the noise patterns. However with wildlife, unless you have 200-400 zoom, you often have to crop and that is where the problem lies. When you get to ISO 1000 even on the 1DX, and start cropping, you lose your ability to enlarge or have to post process so much that the image begins to look artificial....and with 18MP you cant crop much...again as compared to the 5DIII where you can cut it a bit deeper. 18MP is nothing to sneeze at though.
For some situations noise (grain) is not a bad thing and as long as it's random and not distracting you can work with it. Especially if you print it on canvas or luster papers. I still have problems when the noise interferes with the ability to split feathers on a bird.
For some situations noise (grain) is not a bad thing and as long as it's random and not distracting you can work with it. Especially if you print it on canvas or luster papers. I still have problems when the noise interferes with the ability to split feathers on a bird.
bdunbar79 said:
Upvote
0
you must have been out fishing too long 
I do prefer the 5DIII but only after using the 1DX for a couple of weeks. I had higher hopes for the 1DX and had aspired to buy one some day. But I was disappointed in the fact that for the extra 3K I did not see that much over the 5DIII. One of the biggest annoyances I found of the 1dX 12fps drive mode was the sheer noise from the shutter. When I would let it rip, it would actually scare away herons and ducks. All of the work trying to stealthily get close to the subjects was gone in an instant. That was a shock and never have that issue shooting with the 5DIII.
I took the approach of looking at the 1DX from a practical aspect and what I was seeing on my final images comparing the 1DX to the 5DIII. I wasn't basing it on theoretical limits or assigning score ratings. And since I didn't have 6K wrapped up in it I didn't have to justify that by making superior claims on features that I didn't really need, see as useful for the work I was doing, or that it made THAT big of difference in the final image.
I do prefer the 5DIII but only after using the 1DX for a couple of weeks. I had higher hopes for the 1DX and had aspired to buy one some day. But I was disappointed in the fact that for the extra 3K I did not see that much over the 5DIII. One of the biggest annoyances I found of the 1dX 12fps drive mode was the sheer noise from the shutter. When I would let it rip, it would actually scare away herons and ducks. All of the work trying to stealthily get close to the subjects was gone in an instant. That was a shock and never have that issue shooting with the 5DIII.I took the approach of looking at the 1DX from a practical aspect and what I was seeing on my final images comparing the 1DX to the 5DIII. I wasn't basing it on theoretical limits or assigning score ratings. And since I didn't have 6K wrapped up in it I didn't have to justify that by making superior claims on features that I didn't really need, see as useful for the work I was doing, or that it made THAT big of difference in the final image.
expatinasia said:
Upvote
0
East Wind, I can gaurantee I could produce a grain free, sharp 20x30 with either the 1DX or a 5D3, at ISO 1250, 1600, 2000, 2500, 3200, and possibly 4000. And if the image is of an animal where the animal in the middle of the picture, is the only thing in focus...then I could go as high as ISO 10,000 on the 5D3, and 12,800 on the 1DX. I could use only CS5 to do it, although ideally the higher ISO shots above 4000 would need NR better than PS (for those people that need to look at the print from 8 inches in front of it).
Neither camera's native resolution would be printable at 300 dpi, for a 20x30. That resolution, is 54 megapixels. I know because I recently scaled an image of mine, and produced a 20x30 print for one of my customers, shot with my puny little 15.1 MP 50D, at ISO 320....with a 200mm f/4 lens, at f/4.5. (full frame equivalent 280mm). It is hanging in their lobby, for all their customers to see. It is sharp almost to the corners, and doesn't look like it was scaled up. I used the standard bicubic, amongst other tweaks.
So again, you need not limit yourself to ISO 1000. And again, the true test, would have been a comparison between the autofocus performance of the two bodies, in low light. Hindsight now, of course.
Neither camera's native resolution would be printable at 300 dpi, for a 20x30. That resolution, is 54 megapixels. I know because I recently scaled an image of mine, and produced a 20x30 print for one of my customers, shot with my puny little 15.1 MP 50D, at ISO 320....with a 200mm f/4 lens, at f/4.5. (full frame equivalent 280mm). It is hanging in their lobby, for all their customers to see. It is sharp almost to the corners, and doesn't look like it was scaled up. I used the standard bicubic, amongst other tweaks.
So again, you need not limit yourself to ISO 1000. And again, the true test, would have been a comparison between the autofocus performance of the two bodies, in low light. Hindsight now, of course.
Upvote
0
East Wind Photography said:
Just to make sure I understand, are you referring to things like banding noise when you use the term "noise patterns"? The 1D X does have higher read noise than the 5D III, and at lower ISO settings (100-800) I guess I wouldn't be surprised if it did have slightly more banding. At high ISO, I'd be surprised if you encountered anything but random photon noise with both cameras...however the higher pixel density of the 5D III would basically mean that, assuming identical subject framing, you have more pixels on subject, so noise is a smaller factor of detail overall. In other words...the lower resolution of the 1D X is the detractor in your comparison of the two cameras.
Upvote
0
Just back from a Dive Trip, using the 1dx & 5DMK3 in Seacam Housings for the first time, 1Dx rules, High ISO leaves the 5DMK3 way behind, but the larger form factor in high current is a bitch.
Most of my Wildlife shooting other then Diving, is Antarctic, Arctic & Africa, love the small form factor of the 5DMK3, always use it combined with the 70-200f2.8 II, but when it comes to dust & weather sealing, again, the 1Dx is worth it's weight in Gold Coins, especially combined with the 400f/2.8 II & 600 f/4 II.
Cant get more than 12fps from the 1Dx, bummer, when you have a Cheater on the hunt going 70kph, 12fps isn't enough, but it'll do until something better comes along. Early morning Africa, late afternoon Africa, 1Dx rules again on the ability to operate at high ISO and retrieve stunning photos.
Both Cameras are tools, but tools for slightly different uses, and budgets, and both Cameras are amazing pieces of technology, Use whichever flips your hair back.
Most of my Wildlife shooting other then Diving, is Antarctic, Arctic & Africa, love the small form factor of the 5DMK3, always use it combined with the 70-200f2.8 II, but when it comes to dust & weather sealing, again, the 1Dx is worth it's weight in Gold Coins, especially combined with the 400f/2.8 II & 600 f/4 II.
Cant get more than 12fps from the 1Dx, bummer, when you have a Cheater on the hunt going 70kph, 12fps isn't enough, but it'll do until something better comes along. Early morning Africa, late afternoon Africa, 1Dx rules again on the ability to operate at high ISO and retrieve stunning photos.
Both Cameras are tools, but tools for slightly different uses, and budgets, and both Cameras are amazing pieces of technology, Use whichever flips your hair back.
Upvote
0
I really wanted the 1DX for wildlife but like the OP, there were a few limitations that made it less attractive than the 5DIII.
1- The 18 MP vs the 22 MP does make a difference when cropping. Obviously if one can fill the frame with the desired correct composition, it is less of a problem but is usually not possible when reach with detail is a function of pixel density. A noisy detailed crop is better than one with big fat clean pixels that fail to provide enough detail. Noise reduction software cleans up noise better than not enough pixels that fail to provide the detail.
2- The 1DX shutter is way too noisy for a lot of wildlife. Imagine to my chagrin when a rare opportunity was immediately spoiled when the bratta-bat-tat of the shutter caused the wolf to take one look at me, do an about face and trot off. I silently cursed while thinking how the 5DIII's shutter operation in silent stealth mode wouldn't have awoken a church-mouse at a wedding. Even single-shot is too noisy for some wildlife situations. Wild grizzlies hear quite well even when you are hiding from them. That click sound from the shutter is enough to make them aware of your presence. I hate that moment of fear when they look directly at you and you wonder what they will do next.
I do disagree with the OP regarding 6 fps being fast enough. No no no! Since most truly wild wildlife doesn't take direction well from the photographer, "work with me" I shouted in vain to the owl as it took off directly towards me. With 12 fps there are much better opportunities to capture the expressive moments when the bird transitions from gravity bound to taking flight, or the action of two lynx playing with each other, it makes sense to have the ability to capture more of those sequences than fewer. I'm not a machine that can capture decisive moments in single-shot of such opportunities.
I wishfully wish, that the much awaited 5DIII firmware update will include providing 8 fps to go along with AF at f/8.
1- The 18 MP vs the 22 MP does make a difference when cropping. Obviously if one can fill the frame with the desired correct composition, it is less of a problem but is usually not possible when reach with detail is a function of pixel density. A noisy detailed crop is better than one with big fat clean pixels that fail to provide enough detail. Noise reduction software cleans up noise better than not enough pixels that fail to provide the detail.
2- The 1DX shutter is way too noisy for a lot of wildlife. Imagine to my chagrin when a rare opportunity was immediately spoiled when the bratta-bat-tat of the shutter caused the wolf to take one look at me, do an about face and trot off. I silently cursed while thinking how the 5DIII's shutter operation in silent stealth mode wouldn't have awoken a church-mouse at a wedding. Even single-shot is too noisy for some wildlife situations. Wild grizzlies hear quite well even when you are hiding from them. That click sound from the shutter is enough to make them aware of your presence. I hate that moment of fear when they look directly at you and you wonder what they will do next.
I do disagree with the OP regarding 6 fps being fast enough. No no no! Since most truly wild wildlife doesn't take direction well from the photographer, "work with me" I shouted in vain to the owl as it took off directly towards me. With 12 fps there are much better opportunities to capture the expressive moments when the bird transitions from gravity bound to taking flight, or the action of two lynx playing with each other, it makes sense to have the ability to capture more of those sequences than fewer. I'm not a machine that can capture decisive moments in single-shot of such opportunities.
I wishfully wish, that the much awaited 5DIII firmware update will include providing 8 fps to go along with AF at f/8.
Upvote
0
(OP) Wow I really didn't expect to get so many responses regarding 12fps being more desirable than 6 or 8. So after hearing everyone's arguments, I agree that in some situations 12fps would be better. In some cases maybe 12fps would still not be enough.
However one thing that I still cannot live with is the LOUD shutter at 12fps for shooting wildlife. Just in the two weeks that I was shooting with the 1DX I had several occasions where the noise scared off wildlife that I would have otherwise had more time to shoot at 6 or 8 fps. In one case it had scared off mergansers which I had not even seen yet from the blind.
I can counter that with one experience with the 5DIII I had recently where I was able to photograph a couple of foxes from 25ft away in drive mode and the noise did not scare them off.
I can understand the need for as many frames as possible in some situations but I don't believe it's worth it if it's so loud as to affect what you are trying to photograph in the first place. I still hold to my position that the 1DX is primarily geared up for sports photography.
Does the 1DX offer a lot of benefits? Yes but it's still my opinion that the 5DIII is a worthy wildlife camera at half the price if you can live without 12fps drive mode.
However one thing that I still cannot live with is the LOUD shutter at 12fps for shooting wildlife. Just in the two weeks that I was shooting with the 1DX I had several occasions where the noise scared off wildlife that I would have otherwise had more time to shoot at 6 or 8 fps. In one case it had scared off mergansers which I had not even seen yet from the blind.
I can counter that with one experience with the 5DIII I had recently where I was able to photograph a couple of foxes from 25ft away in drive mode and the noise did not scare them off.
I can understand the need for as many frames as possible in some situations but I don't believe it's worth it if it's so loud as to affect what you are trying to photograph in the first place. I still hold to my position that the 1DX is primarily geared up for sports photography.
Does the 1DX offer a lot of benefits? Yes but it's still my opinion that the 5DIII is a worthy wildlife camera at half the price if you can live without 12fps drive mode.
Upvote
0
I agree the 5D Mark III is a worthy candidate. Obviously it is, because people photographed wildlife long before the 1DX right? Anyways, just for fun, I'm pretending I'm starting over and have no gear. I've been contracted to shoot wildlife for my primary job, and I have to build up an equipment list. My first camera of choice I suppose would be a 1D Mark IV. I do this because of the 1.3x crop factor, the IQ, and the 10 fps. If the shutter is too loud I'd keep a 7D as backup camera. Later, when I can afford a 600 f/4L, I'd buy a FF 1DX, and shoot with all 3 cameras.
Upvote
0
The VALUE of the 1DX over the 5D3 has been beaten to death. Whether you need the benefits of the 1DX over the 5D3, is totally up to you. But objectively they are there, and at face value over a variety of shooting situations, the 1DX whips the 5D3 soundly. I own both and it's really obvious to me. However, I need the benefits, whereas you might not.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
