Canon EOS-1D X Review

[hyles]

I Think that IQ of 5dII was allready very good, mutch complayn where about AF, and other hardware stuff like viefinder not 100%. Iq has been improved, maybe somone wanted a biger improovment, but since IQ was what has been addresed has been the hardware. Developing a new AF sistem does cost, build quality is mutch better. There are a lot of improvement over the old model. The bigger IQ will arrive with the 5DIII.
Diego

 

[Brymills]

As a devoted amateur photographer who purchased the 5D3, I have to disagree with Marsu42. There are times I wish I had a higher frame rate when photographing my cat. There are a few times when I missed a cute moment.

How long do you spend photographing your cat???

 

[Drizzt321]

As a devoted amateur photographer who purchased the 5D3, I have to disagree with Marsu42. There are times I wish I had a higher frame rate when photographing my cat. There are a few times when I missed a cute moment.

How long do you spend photographing your cat???

Where do you think I Can Haz Cheezburger gets all of it's cat pics from?

 

[jaduffy007]

People complained about the 5D Mark III sensor? :

Yea, it's horrible. It's an incremental improvement over the previous 5d2 sensor. We don't get magical ability to use ISO 5 million that let's us see in the dark with hardly any noise that's easily correctable by LR4. It's hardly usable, don't find it any better than the 5d2 sensor. I mean, I can use images up to ISO 12800 for web size pretty easily. Geesh, it's horrible!

Guys, I don't recall reading any posts where the 5d3 sensor was called "horrible" or even "bad". This includes the madness of dpreview forums. What there's been a lot of is, disappointment in the lack of improvement vs 5d2, such as banding, etc This is an important distinction that seems "lost" on Canon fanboys. "lack of improvement" does not equate to "bad" or "horrible". The intensity of comments from those objectively pointing out this lack of improvement (in contrast to the D800) increased dramatically as they encountered fanboys unwilling to acknowledge these facts. Usually the fanboys would mis-characterize the "critical" comments by using hyperbole such as "So you think the sensor sucks, go away troll!" or give the impression the poster had insane expectations such as "magical ability to use ISO 5 million" or that the poster had written the sensor was "horrible". Ahem.

Another example: Lloyd Chambers said he found himself "bored" in regard to the 5d3 images and Canon fanboys went ballistic saying the "5D3 images are not boring!!". Well, that's not what Lloyd said. It was the lack of improvement that led to him having a lack of enthusiasm. Lack of enthusiasm does not equal "bad" or "horrible".

This, all in contrast to the simple truth that the 5d3 sensor is not a significant improvement over the 5d2 and after waiting 4 (f'ing) years for the update, that's disappointing or as Lloyd put it, "boring".

Ok, well, next time maybe I need to add <sarcasm> tags more often. I guess I wasn't over the top enough.

For me personally, the 5d3 sensor is a decent upgrade, although not phenomenal. I actually do find it to be a pretty big improvement over the 5d2 at high ISOs, especially when shooting for web size images. In terms of banding, I personally see some decent improvement over the 5d2, but it still needs a good bit of work.

Drizz, I got the sarcasm crystal clear

I'm giving you a hard time because so often such sarcasm or some form of snarkiness is used to dismiss the comments of those of us who expected more from the 5D3 in comparison to the arguably ground breaking 5D2. This has been argued to death by now, but given the zero increase in DR and resolution, *I* expected either a dramatic improvement in high iso performance or a $2,500 price tag. We received neither.

 

[SandyP]

For anyone using the 5D Mark III in any serious shooting, and especially for their profession, I know very few people who would complain about the price. It's fine. The camera is such a big improvement over anything before it. Well worth the money, well worth it indeed.

The sensor isn't nearly as similar as people are describing. This is probably the most ridiculous forum for photographers out there, reading through this place is sometimes so hilarious. The camera appeals to so many aspects of photography that it never did or could have really catered to before. Haha.

The 1D-X is a mighty piece of gear, for what the 5D3 is, I have absolutely no need for the 1D-X, and I personally know a good handful of people who feel the same way. The 1D-X was announced officially before the 5D3 ever was, and A lot of us were saying "there's my next camera", but the second the 5D3 was official, that all changed.

 

[Marsu42]

The sensor isn't nearly as similar as people are describing..

You're correct, there have been sensor changes from the 5d2 to the 5d3 - a little bit more mp with the tradeoff of a little decrease in dr and some loss of sharpness due to the stronger aa filter ... ok, and to be fair somewhat less banding and a nicer nose pattern.

But all these things are minor, the observation that matters to me personally is that I cannot or can hardly tell 5d2 & 5d3 apart in raw samples up to iso3200. Spoken the other way around, of course the 5d3 is the camera to get if money is no issue.

This has been argued to death by now, but given the zero increase in DR and resolution, *I* expected either a dramatic improvement in high iso performance or a $2,500 price tag. We received neither.

Since even the 1dx threads arrive at the 5d3 sensor again it's safe to say the 1dx is a winner because there's hardly anything to complain about in comparison to what you'd expect from a real flagship camera body.

 

[jaduffy007]

The only thing Nikon beat Canon with the D800 is the megapixels and price (not enough for me and many photographers to switch sides). Everything else, the Mark III does much better.

Actually the D800 not only has a lot more resolution but the quality of those pixels are better, clean shadows, etc. Medium format digital dynamic range too. Qualities I have paid 10's of 1000's of dollars for, now in a $3000 body. In contrast canon is milking its loyal base.

"Everything else much better", such as? I don't know about you, but resolution, DR are pretty much top of my list of priorities. I'm going to resist rehashing this tired old argument in detail, but I can't think of anything the 5d3 does "much better". And just to be clear, I'm not saying the 5d3 is a bad camera, just over priced relative to competing products.

I'm not suggesting it's worth switching sides over ...yet...but that point is within sight. I dont think it serves us to embrace an "ignorance is bliss" mentality, pretending the advantages of the D800 are not highly desirable. 8)

 

[Drizzt321]

People complained about the 5D Mark III sensor? :

Yea, it's horrible. It's an incremental improvement over the previous 5d2 sensor. We don't get magical ability to use ISO 5 million that let's us see in the dark with hardly any noise that's easily correctable by LR4. It's hardly usable, don't find it any better than the 5d2 sensor. I mean, I can use images up to ISO 12800 for web size pretty easily. Geesh, it's horrible!

Guys, I don't recall reading any posts where the 5d3 sensor was called "horrible" or even "bad". This includes the madness of dpreview forums. What there's been a lot of is, disappointment in the lack of improvement vs 5d2, such as banding, etc This is an important distinction that seems "lost" on Canon fanboys. "lack of improvement" does not equate to "bad" or "horrible". The intensity of comments from those objectively pointing out this lack of improvement (in contrast to the D800) increased dramatically as they encountered fanboys unwilling to acknowledge these facts. Usually the fanboys would mis-characterize the "critical" comments by using hyperbole such as "So you think the sensor sucks, go away troll!" or give the impression the poster had insane expectations such as "magical ability to use ISO 5 million" or that the poster had written the sensor was "horrible". Ahem.

Another example: Lloyd Chambers said he found himself "bored" in regard to the 5d3 images and Canon fanboys went ballistic saying the "5D3 images are not boring!!". Well, that's not what Lloyd said. It was the lack of improvement that led to him having a lack of enthusiasm. Lack of enthusiasm does not equal "bad" or "horrible".

This, all in contrast to the simple truth that the 5d3 sensor is not a significant improvement over the 5d2 and after waiting 4 (f'ing) years for the update, that's disappointing or as Lloyd put it, "boring".

Ok, well, next time maybe I need to add <sarcasm> tags more often. I guess I wasn't over the top enough.

For me personally, the 5d3 sensor is a decent upgrade, although not phenomenal. I actually do find it to be a pretty big improvement over the 5d2 at high ISOs, especially when shooting for web size images. In terms of banding, I personally see some decent improvement over the 5d2, but it still needs a good bit of work.

Drizz, I got the sarcasm crystal clear

I'm giving you a hard time because so often such sarcasm or some form of snarkiness is used to dismiss the comments of those of us who expected more from the 5D3 in comparison to the arguably ground breaking 5D2. This has been argued to death by now, but given the zero increase in DR and resolution, *I* expected either a dramatic improvement in high iso performance or a $2,500 price tag. We received neither.

Ah, ok. I was being a little snarky (mostly sarcastic) playing off of iso79's comment.

I definitely understand where you're coming from, and most people were expecting some decent improvements in other areas of sensor performance. Definitely not ground breaking compared to the 5d2 when it first came out, but we could view it kinda like Intel's tick-tock cycle. This is the tick, smaller improvements but lots of refinement. The next one released in 3-4 years? I'm hoping it'll be mighty interesting.

 

[jaduffy007]

...and that premium comes at a price.

... expanding on that, I see many pros (like in: shoot for a living and having to balance the books) didn't upgrade to the 5d3, at least for the time being. They have 5d2 cameras and have learned to use them, and unless you shoot sports there aren't killer features on the 5d3 that would give your product the edge since the sensor is so similar. And if you shoot sports and are in the biz, you'd get the 1d4 or 1dx - so where does this leave the 5d3?

I agree 100%. For commercial photogs the much improved AF would be nice but not remotely worth the price. If you're a pro sports shooter, you never considered the 5d series to begin with. A refurbed 5d2 is one of the best values on the planet right now.

 

[jaduffy007]

The 5D3 and 1Dx are meant for professionals earning money from Photography. They aren't targetted at those who want a new toy to play with and only have so much saved.

The 5D3 and 1Dx will last me 4 years, costing about $40 per week over 4 years.

Seems reasonable to me just not to those photographing the inside of a lens cap.

I guess I just don't "get it". "Lens cap", hmm. I'm very predominantly a studio shooter ie, portraiture, fashion, beauty. Been trying out a D800. Just did an editorial Marie Claire shoot that included some "low key" lighting. Being able to shoot at high IQ, low iso and lift those shadows as I wished without needing NR that smears details like peanut butter is extremely valuable. My subject's skin would have turned to blurry mush! Images reminded me a great deal of my shoots with a rented Phase One IQ140 ($30k kit). I can think how vastly more important this ability would be to landscape shooters as well as concert and other low light shooters. Shooting at high iso cannot compete in terms of IQ.

 

[D_Rochat]

People complained about the 5D Mark III sensor? :

Yea, it's horrible. It's an incremental improvement over the previous 5d2 sensor. We don't get magical ability to use ISO 5 million that let's us see in the dark with hardly any noise that's easily correctable by LR4. It's hardly usable, don't find it any better than the 5d2 sensor. I mean, I can use images up to ISO 12800 for web size pretty easily. Geesh, it's horrible!

Guys, I don't recall reading any posts where the 5d3 sensor was called "horrible" or even "bad". This includes the madness of dpreview forums. What there's been a lot of is, disappointment in the lack of improvement vs 5d2, such as banding, etc This is an important distinction that seems "lost" on Canon fanboys. "lack of improvement" does not equate to "bad" or "horrible". The intensity of comments from those objectively pointing out this lack of improvement (in contrast to the D800) increased dramatically as they encountered fanboys unwilling to acknowledge these facts. Usually the fanboys would mis-characterize the "critical" comments by using hyperbole such as "So you think the sensor sucks, go away troll!" or give the impression the poster had insane expectations such as "magical ability to use ISO 5 million" or that the poster had written the sensor was "horrible". Ahem.

Another example: Lloyd Chambers said he found himself "bored" in regard to the 5d3 images and Canon fanboys went ballistic saying the "5D3 images are not boring!!". Well, that's not what Lloyd said. It was the lack of improvement that led to him having a lack of enthusiasm. Lack of enthusiasm does not equal "bad" or "horrible".

This, all in contrast to the simple truth that the 5d3 sensor is not a significant improvement over the 5d2 and after waiting 4 (f'ing) years for the update, that's disappointing or as Lloyd put it, "boring".

I agree. I don't think that anyone thinks the 5DIII is a bad camera. But for the price, it better be mind bogglingly good, and I don't think anyone would say that is the case. I would pay 2500 in a heartbeat for the 5DIII, but at over 3000 it is just not going to happen. The 5DIII is actually just what I expected it would be, except I expected Canon to beat Nikon's price by 500 bucks, instead it's the other way around.
So, yes, for 3500 dollars the camera is a bit underwhelming(boring)

So.... How 'bout that 1d X?

 

[Tayvin]

The 5D3 and 1Dx are meant for professionals earning money from Photography. They aren't targetted at those who want a new toy to play with and only have so much saved.

The 5D3 and 1Dx will last me 4 years, costing about $40 per week over 4 years.

Seems reasonable to me just not to those photographing the inside of a lens cap.

I guess I just don't "get it". "Lens cap", hmm. I'm very predominantly a studio shooter ie, portraiture, fashion, beauty. Been trying out a D800. Just did an editorial Marie Claire shoot that included some "low key" lighting. Being able to shoot at high IQ, low iso and lift those shadows as I wished without needing NR that smears details like peanut butter is extremely valuable. My subject's skin would have turned to blurry mush! Images reminded me a great deal of my shoots with a rented Phase One IQ140 ($30k kit). I can think how vastly more important this ability would be to landscape shooters as well as concert and other low light shooters. Shooting at high iso cannot compete in terms of IQ.

jaduffy, will you put up a link to some of the images you've shot with the D800? I'm not trying to put you on the spot or anything; I just want to see some images that were properly lit with this camera. I'm still waiting on my 800e. Thanks!

And back to the topic at hand - I thought the 1ds III was Canon's flagship DSLR???

 

[Bombsight]

I cant understand why so many 5DMK3 owners are saying ... "I'm glad", "It does", "It doesn't", "Cant do", "Can do", blah, blah, blah ... ON ALL OF THE 1DX THREADS! ??? :

WE GET IT! ... you payed less for less of a camera!

Be happy & go use it.

Quit spending time counting your $$$ in front of those who spent more for what they wanted!!!!!!

Jeeeeez us! :

 

[jaduffy007]

The 5D3 and 1Dx are meant for professionals earning money from Photography. They aren't targetted at those who want a new toy to play with and only have so much saved.

The 5D3 and 1Dx will last me 4 years, costing about $40 per week over 4 years.

Seems reasonable to me just not to those photographing the inside of a lens cap.

I guess I just don't "get it". "Lens cap", hmm. I'm very predominantly a studio shooter ie, portraiture, fashion, beauty. Been trying out a D800. Just did an editorial Marie Claire shoot that included some "low key" lighting. Being able to shoot at high IQ, low iso and lift those shadows as I wished without needing NR that smears details like peanut butter is extremely valuable. My subject's skin would have turned to blurry mush! Images reminded me a great deal of my shoots with a rented Phase One IQ140 ($30k kit). I can think how vastly more important this ability would be to landscape shooters as well as concert and other low light shooters. Shooting at high iso cannot compete in terms of IQ.

jaduffy, will you put up a link to some of the images you've shot with the D800? I'm not trying to put you on the spot or anything; I just want to see some images that were properly lit with this camera. I'm still waiting on my 800e. Thanks!

And back to the topic at hand - I thought the 1ds III was Canon's flagship DSLR???

Well Tayvin, as massively outdated as my website is, and i mean seriously neglected! ...just last night I did put up a few new shots from the shoot I was referring to in my post. Website link below. D800 images: The opening image of the site, the B&W of Jaimie Alexander (Thor, etc). Then I believe there are a few shots of Jaimie in the beauty and editorial sections. All shot with the d800 with the 85 f1.8G, Zeiss 100 f2 or
200 f2. Any shots of Jaimie are with D800.

The images are retouched, but with the exception of Jaimie's back in the B&W, you would be shocked how little retouching was required. Seriously. She has phenomenal skin and we had a great MUA, Jeffrey Paul.

Whether they are "properly lit" is a matter of opinion. And please keep in mind, you're looking at 500kb jpegs!

jamesallenduffy.com

If you have any further questions, you can email me via the website info.

 

[jaduffy007]

People complained about the 5D Mark III sensor? :

Yea, it's horrible. It's an incremental improvement over the previous 5d2 sensor. We don't get magical ability to use ISO 5 million that let's us see in the dark with hardly any noise that's easily correctable by LR4. It's hardly usable, don't find it any better than the 5d2 sensor. I mean, I can use images up to ISO 12800 for web size pretty easily. Geesh, it's horrible!

Guys, I don't recall reading any posts where the 5d3 sensor was called "horrible" or even "bad". This includes the madness of dpreview forums. What there's been a lot of is, disappointment in the lack of improvement vs 5d2, such as banding, etc This is an important distinction that seems "lost" on Canon fanboys. "lack of improvement" does not equate to "bad" or "horrible". The intensity of comments from those objectively pointing out this lack of improvement (in contrast to the D800) increased dramatically as they encountered fanboys unwilling to acknowledge these facts. Usually the fanboys would mis-characterize the "critical" comments by using hyperbole such as "So you think the sensor sucks, go away troll!" or give the impression the poster had insane expectations such as "magical ability to use ISO 5 million" or that the poster had written the sensor was "horrible". Ahem.

Another example: Lloyd Chambers said he found himself "bored" in regard to the 5d3 images and Canon fanboys went ballistic saying the "5D3 images are not boring!!". Well, that's not what Lloyd said. It was the lack of improvement that led to him having a lack of enthusiasm. Lack of enthusiasm does not equal "bad" or "horrible".

This, all in contrast to the simple truth that the 5d3 sensor is not a significant improvement over the 5d2 and after waiting 4 (f'ing) years for the update, that's disappointing or as Lloyd put it, "boring".

I agree. I don't think that anyone thinks the 5DIII is a bad camera. But for the price, it better be mind bogglingly good, and I don't think anyone would say that is the case. I would pay 2500 in a heartbeat for the 5DIII, but at over 3000 it is just not going to happen. The 5DIII is actually just what I expected it would be, except I expected Canon to beat Nikon's price by 500 bucks, instead it's the other way around.
So, yes, for 3500 dollars the camera is a bit underwhelming(boring)

So.... How 'bout that 1d X?

I apologize! I"ll shut up now.

 

[gary samples]

there just trying to make them selfs feel better for not hav'n our not willing to put out the money !!

can hardy wait for 1dx come to papa .

 

[briansquibb]

The only thing Nikon beat Canon with the D800 is the megapixels and price (not enough for me and many photographers to switch sides). Everything else, the Mark III does much better.

Actually the D800 not only has a lot more resolution but the quality of those pixels are better, clean shadows, etc. Medium format digital dynamic range too. Qualities I have paid 10's of 1000's of dollars for, now in a $3000 body. In contrast canon is milking its loyal base.

"Everything else much better", such as? I don't know about you, but resolution, DR are pretty much top of my list of priorities. I'm going to resist rehashing this tired old argument in detail, but I can't think of anything the 5d3 does "much better". And just to be clear, I'm not saying the 5d3 is a bad camera, just over priced relative to competing products.

I'm not suggesting it's worth switching sides over ...yet...but that point is within sight. I dont think it serves us to embrace an "ignorance is bliss" mentality, pretending the advantages of the D800 are not highly desirable. 8)

I understood that the noise advantage of the D800 disappeared by ISO 800? and similarly the DR?

Both cameras are very good I am sure - but surely they are so far apart in their potential user base that real comparison between is down to personal preference.

The 1DX should be IMO be compared with the D4.

I will be interested in reviews of the 1DX as it is the planned replacement for my 7D

 

[Philco]

I'm really pleased to see how well the 5DIII compares to the Flagship model 1DX. Everyone is complaining about the cost of a the 5DIII, (with a grip and sales tax here in CA came to $4200) but considering how close it got me to a 1DX w/out the added expense for features I won't utilize, I'm happy; especially now that I've enjoyed how well the 5DIII handles on a couple of jobs. I couldn't make a business case to upgrade, as the pair of 5DII's I'd used for a while had been getting the job done, and it's not as if my clients will offer to pay me one penny more to use a newer body (let alone a 1DX). All in all, I would think it would be tougher to holding a recent 1DsIII and figure out what to do....

Supposedly the advantage to the new bodies is full functionality of the new 600 EX RT's, though in my experience I haven't noticed a practical difference between using them off-camera with the master on the 5DII or III.

I agree that the 5DIII is engineered for photographers that make money with their gear, but no one said they aren't also marketed to all photographers. I've never met anyone with a 1 series that didn't make money with it. I think you are more likely to see well-heeled hobbyists sporting a Leica if they're shopping for a status symbol as much as a camera.

 

[Philco]

I cant understand why so many 5DMK3 owners are saying ... "I'm glad", "It does", "It doesn't", "Cant do", "Can do", blah, blah, blah ... ON ALL OF THE 1DX THREADS! ??? :

WE GET IT! ... you payed less for less of a camera!

Be happy & go use it.

Quit spending time counting your $$$ in front of those who spent more for what they wanted!!!!!!

Jeeeeez us! :

The review of the 1DX includes direct comparisons between both cameras. That's WHY.

 

[briansquibb]

I've never met anyone with a 1 series that didn't make money with it.

Nice to meet you Philco, I am a hobbyist with several 1 series and I dont make any money from them