How can I choose between 1DX and 5D MARK III?

[Jack Douglas]

Forgive my ignorance as I'm shooting 6D. Do I understand that the spot metering and focus from an outer point correspond for the 1Dx, but with the 5D3 the metering is not taken from the selected spot? I'm only using the center point and spot metering with the 6D as I know I wouldn't get what I do, otherwise.

I'm also looking at a second purchase between 5D3 (not too likely), the mythical 7D2 (would that really be a reach advantage) and whatever comes as an updated 1Dx. After about a year I now see I have a strong inclination towards using my 300 2.8 II only with the 2X III for the 600 reach. I'm happy with the 6D generally but miss most action shots, which doesn't thrill me.

Any thoughts?

Jack

 

[Loswr]

Do I understand that the spot metering and focus from an outer point correspond for the 1Dx, but with the 5D3 the metering is not taken from the selected spot?

Correct. Currently, only 1-series dSLR bodies can spot meter at any AF point, all others spot meter in the center only. 1-series also do multipoint metering, where you can meter on up to eight spots and it will average them.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks neuro,

At this moment that would be a pretty significant factor in me choosing to use other points. I almost always am using spot metering with the 6D with my bird or small animal shots as that seems to give me the best exposure provided the subject is large enough in the frame. BIF not filling the frame means I don't have a hope with the center spot hand holding 600mm so I'd activate all the spots but that brings its own problems it seems.


My two years of wildlife shooting is about enough to be able to sense what I'm missing that others take advantage of. One year of D5100 with 300mm - pretty happy, now almost one year 6D with 300mm X2 - thrilled but beginning to be a little frustrated!

Jack

 

[docsmith]

I've always liked the reviews over at The-Digital-Picture.com. Toward the end, they list the advantages the 1DX has over the 5DIII and vice versa:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

Personally, I bought the 5DIII. It's great. You are debating two great cameras. There are times when I see something about the 1DX that makes me want it. Heck, there are times when I want 36 MP of the D800. But the 5DIII is absolutely a great camera and I shoot everything from portraits to BIF with it.

 

[firewalker]

Guys, many thanks for your explanations.

Currently I am doing my landscape shots, because I have owned Zeiss 21 2.8, EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF 24-105, which are good ( I wouldn't say enough ) for landscape. However, I am also interested in birds and wildlife, and even football shooting, the problem is I do not own 400mm and plus.

Back to my topic, if I buy 1DX, I can not only shoot landscape, but also wildlife in the future. My question is:

1. compared with 5D3, is 1DX better or equivalent to on landscape shooting?

2. Lacking of 4 megapixels, is it the big gap between 1DX and 5D3 on landscape shooting?

 

[Grumbaki]

Do I understand that the spot metering and focus from an outer point correspond for the 1Dx, but with the 5D3 the metering is not taken from the selected spot?

Correct. Currently, only 1-series dSLR bodies can spot meter at any AF point, all others spot meter in the center only. 1-series also do multipoint metering, where you can meter on up to eight spots and it will average them.

More than any other factor, that is to me the biggest gap between the 5d3 and 1dx. But for lanscape (have time to get the expo right) and birds (spot does good), how does that really matter?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I want to upgrade my camera which is 5D markii.
For those of you who have tried both the Canon 1DX and 5D MKIII,

1. how do they compare to each other?

1DX drives super-tele AF a bit faster.

1DX is a heavy, bulky brick that I don't like personally.

1DX has better quality movies straight out of the camera for sure. OTOH, if you are willing to shoot RAW, then using ML RAW video makes the 5D3 video quality better than anything the 1DX can do and you also get much better video usability controls with ML than the 1DX gives you.

1DX has faster trigger reaction time and much faster FPS.

2. How do they compare in image quality?(Especially under ISO 50 and 100)

ISO50 is basically useless on both AFAIK, just a clipped ISO100.
ISO100 is pretty similar although the 1DX has a bit less banding in the deep shadows, so the files are a bit more workable than with the 5D3, and getting close to the best Canonhas offered for that (1Ds3/6D) although pretty far from D4/Df never mind D800 and all. 5D3 a bit more res but 1DX a bit better behaved shadow banding at ISO100, I'd give it to the 1DX at ISO100 by a noticeable if not really large degree.

3. Do you think that it's worth getting the 1DX over the 5D MKIII if I mostly do a lot of landscape shots and sometime shoot birds?

Many thanks!

It's a LOT of extra money to get a bit better shadow banding control and a lot of extra weight to lug around so it's your call. The files are a bit more malleable at ISO100 although it's not like huge 3 stops more, even to notice and make a difference but $4000 more I don't know so much at all, especially with the weight penalty.

You could add an A7R+adapter+5D3 and get better landscape quality (assuming the adapters prove to not toss of lens alignment, not yet proven) than from the 1DX with ease, much more DR and more detail. The 5D3 could handle the birds a bit better than the 5D2 with the higher fps and better AF and a bit better high ISO. That said, for birds, I bet an upcoming 7D2 would be better than either the 5D3 or 1DX. Maybe an A7R+adpater soon, if they prove to work well with Canon glass, and then a 7D2 next spring (assuming it arrives then, it should, but then again, Canon has been late with most things, so many it won't be avail until the end of summer or early fall? do you want to wait that long or not?).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Guys, many thanks for your explanations.

Currently I am doing my landscape shots, because I have owned Zeiss 21 2.8, EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF 24-105, which are good ( I wouldn't say enough ) for landscape. However, I am also interested in birds and wildlife, and even football shooting, the problem is I do not own 400mm and plus.

Back to my topic, if I buy 1DX, I can not only shoot landscape, but also wildlife in the future. My question is:

1. compared with 5D3, is 1DX better or equivalent to on landscape shooting?

2. Lacking of 4 megapixels, is it the big gap between 1DX and 5D3 on landscape shooting?

An A7R+24-70 II I'd say would be a lot better, again assuming adpter works well, for landscapes than a 24-105 on a 1DX, miles better. I'd also take a 5D3+24-70 II over a 1DX+24-105 for landscapes.

For birds, my old 7D was often better than my 5D3 is, unless I can get close and then the 5D3 is better.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

One question you fail to ask:

are the 5D3 and 1DX better than the current 5D2 I already own for landscapes at ISO100 and the answer is not at all and sometimes a little worse and sometimes a little better, respectively.

many a pure landscape shoot stuck with their 5D2 and are now eyeing the A7R+adapter. If you do video and general stuff and action and use AF a lot the 5D3 is a nice upgrade over the 5D2, nicer UI too (auto changing C1-C3, instant 100% review). If the non-landscape is almost all birds though, reach might be at a premium and some high reach, 8-10fps 7D2 might be a bigger upgrade than the 5D3, unless you tend to mostly shoot birds where you are really close in with the lenses you have (if all you have is a 70-200 that would be my guess never ).

 

[danski0224]

I want to upgrade my camera which is 5D markii.
For those of you who have tried both the Canon 1DX and 5D MKIII,

1. how do they compare to each other?

2. How do they compare in image quality?(Especially under ISO 50 and 100)

3. Do you think that it's worth getting the 1DX over the 5D MKIII if I mostly do a lot of landscape shots and sometime shoot birds?

Many thanks!

(1) They are completely different.

(2) Don't know- pretty rare for me to be at 100. But, in actual use, the 1DX has far more latitude in producing totally useable files over ISO 4000 right out of the camera. The noise looks nicer and cleans up easier. Even at A3+ size prints, you may not have do do anything special. For me, more latitude without using a flash is a big deal.

(3) There are so many variables that there is no one correct answer. I suspect there are many people that will only take pictures at ISO 100 and others that do not. There is a great deal of skill in capturing great bird photos and you do not need a 5DIII or 1DX to do it (certainly, lots of great bird images were taken without either camera)- but either may help. Note- I do not yet posess the skills to take great bird pictures. There is a list of stuff on a spec sheet and there is the stuff that happens in real life when using the equipment. There seems to be an awful lot of pixel peeping going on- my 5D2 produced images that I never would have imagined from plain old 35mm film, when 4x6 prints were an upgrade. Seems to be an awful lot of fixation on the details that can be extracted from dark areas in a picture/file. I don't get that, either. To each their own*. That said, if you flub a picture and want to try and recover it a bit, there is more latitude in 1DX files.

In short, if the 5DIII is a 9 or 10 on the volume knob, the 1DX goes to 11. Certainly worth it if it is on your list.


*So, how many people pushing shadows on a computer had the darkroom equipment to do the same thing?

 

[dolina]

You can buy two 5D3 for the price of one 1DX.

 

[danski0224]

2. Lacking of 4 megapixels, is it the big gap between 1DX and 5D3 on landscape shooting?

There is more than one account on more than one forum that mentions that it isn't just the number of MP.

Above a certain ISO threshold, the noise effectively reduces your MP count for you. How that camera resolves/processes the noise begins to matter more than MP counts.

I don't recall the numbers exactly, so I will not quote them. Feel free to do your own digging. I recall reading, essentially, that if you take pictures at a relatively low ISO all the time, say ~400, there is no readily apparent difference between the 5DIII and 1DX and the 5DIII has a slight advantage if you pixel peep. That changes quickly as the ISO goes up.

There is also very little difference in image size when printed at 300 dpi. Others smarter than I have done the math.

While 4mp sounds like a lot, if you do enough digging, the conclusions will be readily apparent.

 

[danski0224]

You can buy two 5D3 for the price of one 1DX.

It isn't always just that simple.

Camera stuff can be cheaper than speed parts... and lots of other stuff

 

[George D.]

For landscape shooting with the 5D MkIII what about the dpreview comments that foliage appears mushy and that out-of-camera JPEG is poor? Is 1Dx above that standard?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/23#lowcontrast

 

[Loswr]

*So, how many people pushing shadows on a computer had the darkroom equipment to do the same thing?

Me....and I remember when dogde and burn were more than just tools in photoshop.

 

[dolina]

You can buy two 5D3 for the price of one 1DX.

It isn't always just that simple.

Camera stuff can be cheaper than speed parts... and lots of other stuff

It is that simple for the 99%. 1-Series body makes up 1% of all EOS sales based on production figures.

 

[j1jenkins]

1. compared with 5D3, is 1DX better or equivalent to on landscape shooting?

2. Lacking of 4 megapixels, is it the big gap between 1DX and 5D3 on landscape shooting?

They are both good. I'm not so sure that 4ish megapixels will be a significant deal, but the added mp's will not hurt. If you were to print images from both cameras at 300dpi, the 5D images would be 1.9 inches x 1.3 inches larger. You can decide whether that is a big deal or not.

If it were me, I'd grab the 5D and put the left-over money towards a bigger zoom for birds. You'll lose 6 fps, but you can still grab action nicely with the 5D.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

A Swedish site tested some Canon T&S lenses on the Sony A7R with adapter and said that the combo worked super well, crisp to the corners, amazing detail (and super DR).

If you really want to get a landscape upgrade from your 5D2 the 5D3 or 1DX won't do much for you. Either wait to see what Canon eventually comes out with or nab with Sony A7R with adapter. And then if you also want to improve bird capture ability, assuming you don't manage to shoot where you can mostly frame fill on FF, I'd wait for the Canon 7D2 next year and then maybe try a dual body Sony A7R+Canon 7D2 system. Or if you don't need a ton of extra reach and 6fps is enough and want something with superb video and don't mind manual focus for video and want one body to be FF and reliable for anything under the sun to some decent extent then maybe pair the A7R with the 5D3.

Honestly my 5D3 really does nothing for my landscapes that my 5D2 didn't already do other than when I'm doing quick work the instant 100% review saves time and you can a little bit more rely AF to nail the shot first try, if you are doing slow tripod work none of that matters though. The 1DX would give a little more freedom to play with shadows without seeing banding, but really with Canon glass only the A7R would give a big jump for pure landscape shooting (for shots where you either want a ton of a ton of MP or where you need more DR, then the improvement is quite considerable, although for modest DR landscape shots where you don't need super tons of MP even then with the A7R it's nothing better than your 5D2).

I think you'd get a lot more improvements using those types of dual pairings than spending the same amount on a 1DX.

If you also do landscape movies though, the 5D3 and 1DX are considerable improvements over the 5D2 though. Super amazingly so if you are also willing to shoot RAW movies and use the 5D3. The technical quality of my 5D3 landscape videos is sooooo much higher than those from my 5D2.

 

[Skulker]

Guys, many thanks for your explanations.

Currently I am doing my landscape shots, because I have owned Zeiss 21 2.8, EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF 24-105, which are good ( I wouldn't say enough ) for landscape. However, I am also interested in birds and wildlife, and even football shooting, the problem is I do not own 400mm and plus.

Back to my topic, if I buy 1DX, I can not only shoot landscape, but also wildlife in the future. My question is:

1. compared with 5D3, is 1DX better or equivalent to on landscape shooting?

2. Lacking of 4 megapixels, is it the big gap between 1DX and 5D3 on landscape shooting?

1. The 1Dx is more to carry round and cost much more. I doubt that you will notice the differences in your landscape shots from one to the other. If you can take a good landscape you will be able to with either of these cameras.

2. It all depends what you are going to do with them. I don't notice the difference for what I do. I doubt you will either.

I have the 1Dx, and love it. For the wildlife that I mainly take it is the better camera. Defiantly. But its heavier and more expensive.

For most of my shots the 5D3 is the better camera. It is lighter to carry around and smaller.

Most of my shots are taken with the 5D3. But if I had to have just 1 it would be the 1Dx.

I very much doubt that the pixel peepers and spec readers would be able to tell what camera had taken my images. There is a huge amount of rubbish spoken on here when people try to show how clever they are.

Either camera will take superb shots if you can use it. As will many others.

 

[eml58]

My two years of wildlife shooting is about enough to be able to sense what I'm missing that others take advantage of. One year of D5100 with 300mm - pretty happy, now almost one year 6D with 300mm X2 - thrilled but beginning to be a little frustrated!
Jack

Hi Jack, it doesn't get better with time, 1Dx + 200-400 and after a year or so I know I'll be looking to Canon dropping a High MP Body into the mix, Canon Nikon Sony ?? They Love People like us.