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

[Jack Douglas]

Hi Edward,

If anyone can speak with such authority it would be you!

I first saw Garry Samples and then your work after discovering CR and you guys provide unbelievable motivation and I have to say a hearty thank you!! Actually to many others too.

I guess in part it's the relentless competitive nature of humans as we see how green the grass is on the other side of the fence. For me it's also a perfectionist characteristic that I can blame on my mother.

I bought the 6D as the least expensive stop gap camera that would introduce me to FF, thinking that flipping it wouldn't be the least expensive mistake. In the mean time it's a fantastic learning tool and I have lots to learn before I can truly say I must have something like the 1Dx. Yes I've missed lots of shots (more my inexperience than the camera) but I've gotten many that blow me away, so I'm very happy. The 300 2.8 II was the critical move I made - no regrets.

As I was advised so I advise - spend on glass first and foremost.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

Somewhere in here someone suggested a 1D IV as an alternative. As a person who has never shot with a 1D or anything similar, that got me wondering what the pros and cons would be in stepping back in the 1D line.

Late 1D - $200 ......... 1D IV - $3000

Is there any merit in considering an older version considering the price or are there some serious negatives. Example: 1D - $200 to goof around with to get a feel for the line. Would it work with my 300 2.8 II for example.

For birding with 300 X2 does the 1D IV have merit relative to the 1.3 reach factor, considering the 5D3 is about the same price new?

Jack

 

[mackguyver]

I don't mean to be rude, but this seems like a relatively simple decision, given the differences the other posters have described.

Unless the speed, build quality, and high ISO advantages are worth the price difference, you will be perfectly happy with a 5DIII (+ battery grip?).

If you're still stuck, rent them both.

 

[kbmelb]

I've had the 5D3 since April 4, 2012. I chose it over the 1Dx mostly for the MPs and little to do with price. Hind site I wish I went with the 1Dx, for cleaner high ISO, better AF, better metering and build quality.

The 5D3 is great but for a lot of what I do, I'm shooting in dark, sometimes back lit environments and with moving subjects. The 5D3 doesn't handle these well enough. My 1Ds3 would be great if not for the ISO limitations. So I am waiting on a refurbed 1Dx.

 

[AlanF]

Somewhere in here someone suggested a 1D IV as an alternative. As a person who has never shot with a 1D or anything similar, that got me wondering what the pros and cons would be in stepping back in the 1D line.

Late 1D - $200 ......... 1D IV - $3000

Is there any merit in considering an older version considering the price or are there some serious negatives. Example: 1D - $200 to goof around with to get a feel for the line. Would it work with my 300 2.8 II for example.

For birding with 300 X2 does the 1D IV have merit relative to the 1.3 reach factor, considering the 5D3 is about the same price new?

Jack

Jack
I looked into this carefully as a cheap 1d IV became available locally. The 5DIII has much better AF and IQ, according to all reports. In practical terms for bird photography, the reach factor is not the 1.3 crop factor but is 1.1 because of the relative pixel densities of the 2 sensors. So, I decided against the 1d IV. The AF on the 5D III is just so good.
Alan

 

[Eldar]

Somewhere in here someone suggested a 1D IV as an alternative. As a person who has never shot with a 1D or anything similar, that got me wondering what the pros and cons would be in stepping back in the 1D line.

Late 1D - $200 ......... 1D IV - $3000

Is there any merit in considering an older version considering the price or are there some serious negatives. Example: 1D - $200 to goof around with to get a feel for the line. Would it work with my 300 2.8 II for example.

For birding with 300 X2 does the 1D IV have merit relative to the 1.3 reach factor, considering the 5D3 is about the same price new?

Jack

Jack
I looked into this carefully as a cheap 1d IV became available locally. The 5DIII has much better AF and IQ, according to all reports. In practical terms for bird photography, the reach factor is not the 1.3 crop factor but is 1.1 because of the relative pixel densities of the 2 sensors. So, I decided against the 1d IV. The AF on the 5D III is just so good.
Alan

I can confirm the same. I actually bought a used 1DIV as a backup/compliment to the 1DX/5DIII, due to the 1.3x crop factor and improved weather sealing for use on a 600mm f4L IS II. But I have now sold it again (made a few bucks) for the reason Alan points out. I rather use the 1DX/5DIII combo. For a crop camera to outperform or be a sensible compliment to this combo (for long reach), it will need an equivalent AF system. The rumored spec for the 7DII looks promising.

 

[eml58]

Somewhere in here someone suggested a 1D IV as an alternative. As a person who has never shot with a 1D or anything similar, that got me wondering what the pros and cons would be in stepping back in the 1D line.

Late 1D - $200 ......... 1D IV - $3000

Is there any merit in considering an older version considering the price or are there some serious negatives. Example: 1D - $200 to goof around with to get a feel for the line. Would it work with my 300 2.8 II for example.

For birding with 300 X2 does the 1D IV have merit relative to the 1.3 reach factor, considering the 5D3 is about the same price new?

Jack

Jack
I looked into this carefully as a cheap 1d IV became available locally. The 5DIII has much better AF and IQ, according to all reports. In practical terms for bird photography, the reach factor is not the 1.3 crop factor but is 1.1 because of the relative pixel densities of the 2 sensors. So, I decided against the 1d IV. The AF on the 5D III is just so good.
Alan

I can confirm the same. I actually bought a used 1DIV as a backup/compliment to the 1DX/5DIII, due to the 1.3x crop factor and improved weather sealing for use on a 600mm f4L IS II. But I have now sold it again (made a few bucks) for the reason Alan points out. I rather use the 1DX/5DIII combo. For a crop camera to outperform or be a sensible compliment to this combo (for long reach), it will need an equivalent AF system. The rumored spec for the 7DII looks promising.

I generally agree with these comments, I used the 5DMK II & 1DMK IV (and the 1DsMk III) before buying into the 5DMK III & 1Dx, on my recent trip to Tanzania I did take the 1DMK IV along with 2 x 1Dx Bodies, my view was with the 600 + 1.4x and the 1.3 Crop on the 1DMK IV, I could reach out about as far as I really needed to.

I shot the 1DMK IV in varying situations alongside the 1Dx, and after a single session relegated the 1DMK IV to my Underwater Macro (where the 1.3 crop with the 100 Macro works a treat), in any relative terms, the 1DMK IV just doesn't live up to the 1Dx.

Against the 5DMK III though I think it's a closer run story, I think you need to look at just what your needs are, Landscape, Portrait etc, I don't see the 1DMK IV being better than the 5DMK III, wildlife, BIF etc, more severe conditions where you need a more robust Body, I would say the only place the 5DMK III trumps the 1DMK IV, is in the Focus array, 45 point on the 1DMK IV, versus 61 on the 5DMK III, I think they are quite evenly matched with a reach advantage to the 1DMK IV and certainly weather proofing and Frame Rate.

 

[Etienne]

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 ).

I upgraded to 5DIII from 5DII and I found a big improvement in IQ in every circumstance. Much bigger than the modest pixel count bump would suggest. Other's have noticed this too, pegging the improvement equivalent to a 15% improvement. It may be due to microlens improvements and/or processor improvements.
For a long time I thought it was my imagination, but then I read an explanation somewhere, can't remember where.
Anyway, the jump from 5DII to 5DIII is bigger than the specs would suggest.

 

[danski0224]

Anyway, the jump from 5DII to 5DIII is bigger than the specs would suggest.

+1

Usable multiple outer focus points.

Increased ISO perfomance, less flash required.

5DII is a great camera, 5DIII is a great improvement.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Having used both and now own the 5diii, the two cameras are purpose built. The 1dx is geared up for sports photography and the 5diii for event and wedding photography. I mainly shoot wildlife which is somewhere in between. The 1dx is a fine camera that excels in many areas that the 5diii can not. However I chose the 5d3 for several reasons. The higher megapixel sensor on the 5d3 produces smaller noise patterns than the 1dx. I can crop a 5d3 shot tighter than I can on the 1dx...though at very high ISO the 1dx wins. However the 5d3 is very usable up to ISO 3200 with some post processing and noise filtering. Second, the 5diii in quiet mode is nearly silent. It's the quietest dslr made and allows me to shoot closer to wildlife from a blind without scaring them away. You can also shoot during a wedding ceremony without turning everyone's head. Lastly the size and weight were an issue for me. The 1dx is quite heavy and large. I try to travel with a small backpack and the 1dx was too large to pack. I can fit a 5d3 with a 300 2.8l plus extenders and one other smaller lens into a street walker pro backpack. Not so with a 1dx.

I do miss the 12fps but while I had the 1dx the shutter scared away most of what I normally photograph. I believe the upcoming 7d mark ii will fill the gap for me once it comes out.

You need to decide if the features of the 1dx are really something that you need or not. The 5d3 is my workhorse right now and has worked well through most every situation I have found myself in. It should be considered a primary camera and at least a backup to a 1dx if you choose to have that as a primary.

Hope some of my comments help you decide. You should consider renting both before purchasing. Might save you some anguish later.

 

[WPJ]

Shouldn't the question have been "how do I choose between a 1DX or 2 5Dm3?"

haha, hihi

 

[rmfagan]

To anyone that says the 5D3 AF is basically the same as the 1DX, I strongly beg to differ. I own a 5D3, and used a 1DX courtesy of CPS alongside it last night to shoot Teddy Bridgewater and Louisville roll UConn. The first thing I noticed is that the 1DX is worlds faster. Sure, it may be only a fraction of a second, but shooting elite athletes at the D-I level, that fraction of a second is everything. Where the 1DX would nail focus instantly, the 5D3 often wouldn't find focus until the "moment" had passed. I don't do much BIF, but I have to imagine there are similarities. To me, it was no contest. That said the 5D3 is no slouch and before I used the 1DX I was quite impressed/happy with the AF. Still am, just won't get anywhere near the same keepers.

Secondly, the 1DX tracks better...much, much better. The 5D3 isn't bad, but the 1DX kills it. This might not be as much of a problem if BIF are going perpendicular to the camera, but if distance is variable, it could. 1DX also disregards obstacles much better. It's enough of a difference that I, as a poor college student am now scraping pennies to finance a 1DX.

As for landscapes, stick to the 5d3. It's great. Anything action, 1DX all the way. The 5D3 AF might have the same bones, but the 1DX has the muscle, speed, and smarts. We've all got the same bones as Usain Bolt too, right? But a world-beater on the track, I'm not.

 

[Harry Muff]

Ask your wallet.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks guys for the comments directed my way.

Is a 1D capable of the roll I mentioned (goof off, getting OK pictures and learning a little about how the 1D line compares to smaller cameras) at $150 - $200 or is that a really dumb idea and a total waste of a few dollers?

Jack

 

[Harry Muff]

Thanks guys for the comments directed my way.

Is a 1D capable of the roll I mentioned (goof off, getting OK pictures and learning a little about how the 1D line compares to smaller cameras) at $150 - $200 or is that a really dumb idea and a total waste of a few dollers?

Jack

What?

 

[candc]

Get the 1DX if you plan on:

a) being behind enemy lines
b)shooting Tasmanian sea bears

Or if
a)the difference between usain bolt's toe being an inch off the track or touching it makes a difference
b)you want it

 

[jhpeterson]

I've found from costly experience that nothing but the 1D series of bodies will work for me. Granted, not all of you work on the water a hundred or more days a year, but, if you ever put your gear through some of the worst that nature can dish out, whether planned or not, you owe it to yourself to get the 1DX, or one of its earlier iterations. Better weather sealing, stronger materials and more rugged construction often make the difference between getting the shot when it counts and being down for the count.

On the other hand, if you're one who ALWAYS babies your camera, never mind; the 5DMark 3 will be fine.

 

[DaveMiko]

If you can afford it and want to have the best DSLR out there, then, by all means, get the 1DX.

 

[East Wind Photography]

If you can afford it and want to have the best DSLR out there, then, by all means, get the 1DX.

My personal opinion is that it's only the best if you shoot sports or other subjects that require capturing action. If you are a wedding photographer the 1dx is not the best option...the 5diii offers the quietest shutter made and allows you to shoot in places you otherwise wouldn't.

 

[7enderbender]

It all depends on specific purposes. I would even rephrase the original question: is there a pressing reason to upgrade the existing 5DII? In my experience no. I took both to a shoot recently and could not tell the difference in picture quality for all practical purposes.

Is there something measurable? Yes, probably. But image quality difference is not convincing me to shell out thousands of dollars on new bodies.

Are there other reasons to go with a MarkIII or 1Dx? Plenty. But only the individual photographer and buyer can discern that. No camera today is "ideal" in my book. All have advantages and disadvantages. Some of this is probably by design for marketing purposes. So everyone needs to find their own sweet spots for specific purposes, even if all of those are great multipurpose cameras. First world problems really in the end.