Will the D1-x really be superior to the new 5DIII?

[alaskakd]

I have ordered the 1D-X and I am awaiting its arrival with marked anticipation. The jury is clearly out on the 5DIII. Marginal if any improvement in IQ, better auto focusing and slightly better resolution at high ISO. But clearly it is not a game changer like the Nikon D800.

Many people are reporting that the 1D-X will be that "step upward" in resolution, focusing and technology that we member rally boys for Canon are dying for.

I am skeptical - yes as I understand it, the1D-X has an additional processor for managing color analysis for improved auto focusing but what else does it have on board that will make it the worthy successor to the 1D3s?

Yes, weather sealing and unbelievable construction but what about resolution? It is 18 mega pixels so will this camera make me come out of my "emo" corner and start feeling good about Canon again? CAn anyone explain the science behind this camera which makes people think that it will be the bomb and not just bomb?

 

[V8Beast]

It depends what you mean by better. I've had the 5DIII for a bit over a week now, and while it's a great camera overall, I can clearly see the potential for the 1Dx to improve upon it. The 1Dx's IQ remains to be seen, so I won't attempt to speculate on it. That said, the 5DIII's build quality, AF acquisition speed, ergonomics, handling, and buffer size still aren't up to 1-series standards.

IMHO, the 1Dx's larger buffer, blazing FPS, and dual UDMA 7 CF card slows will enable it to pull a huge gap in speed between it and the 5DIII. Don't get me wrong. The 5DIII's AF is vastly improved over the MKII, but it's still not as snappy or responsive as even my ancient 1DII. If you don't need the extra speed or build quality of the 1Dx over the 5DIII, then it might not be worth the extra money if it doesn't offer noticeable improvement in IQ. Of course, Canon might surprise everyone with killer IQ improvements in the 1Dx.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There is little question that the 1D x will be a better camera, but as far as IQ at ISO 100, I doubt it. At ISO 51200, yes!

However, there are lots of under the hood improvements that are significant.

The real question, is "What are they worth to YOU!.

Not everyone will place the same value on the differences, so for many, the 5D MK II ot 5D MK III provides the features they want and value for price.

 

[rlarsen]

The specs on the 1DX have been released, and Canon says it will be the best they've ever introduced.
Just like you find here and on the Nikon forums, reaction will be all over the place.
Many people will love it and others will come up with a long list of disappointments. And then there are those photographers who will carefully decide it fits their needs and will be too busy making pictures to write about the camera. I ordered one but decided the 5D MKlll fits my needs, is less expensive, and is a lot lighter.

Before spending $7,000 you may want to read critical reviews, and actually try the camera before you purchase it. One person said their older 1-D MK ll has better auto focus than the 5D MK lll. That has not been my experience. The new 5D bodies I use have better autofocus than my 1-DMK lln and 1-DMK lV. Those cameras do have faster motordrives though, and results will also be effected by lens choice. Some newer camera bodies out perform certain lenses.

Few people will be surprised when top pros who now use the 1-D MK lV upgrade to the DX for the improved speed and AF technology. New sensor technology will be icing on the cake.

I'm impressed with the 5D MK lll and have used many of the Canon 1-D series and pro film cameras with excellent results, but I've never owned a perfect camera.

 

[AnselA]

I find this kind of question perplexing.

 

[koolkurkle]

I agree, since I don't know what a D1-x is.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have ordered the 1D-X and I am awaiting its arrival with marked anticipation. The jury is clearly out on the 5DIII. Marginal if any improvement in IQ, better auto focusing and slightly better resolution at high ISO. But clearly it is not a game changer like the Nikon D800.

Many people are reporting that the 1D-X will be that "step upward" in resolution, focusing and technology that we member rally boys for Canon are dying for.

I am skeptical - yes as I understand it, the1D-X has an additional processor for managing color analysis for improved auto focusing but what else does it have on board that will make it the worthy successor to the 1D3s?

Yes, weather sealing and unbelievable construction but what about resolution? It is 18 mega pixels so will this camera make me come out of my "emo" corner and start feeling good about Canon again? CAn anyone explain the science behind this camera which makes people think that it will be the bomb and not just bomb?

the 1dx is about speed, 12-14fps, instant reaction time, etc. that is what is does better than the 5D3 (maybe the sensor too, but IMO, canon would've bombed if they held back good sensor tech from the 5D3).

if 14fps and short mirror blackout and top weather sealing and all mean nothing to you, then you ordered the wrong model

 

[helpful]

The 5DIII's AF [...] it's still not as snappy or responsive as even my ancient 1DII.

With all due respect, I must disagree here. What lens(es) are you using and what AF settings when you say that the 5DIII is not as snappy or responsive in autofocusing as the 1DII?

With my 24mm f/1.4 L II, 85mm/100mm f/1.8 / f/2.0, 70-200 mm f/2.8L II, 135mm f/2.0L, and other fast-focusing lenses, I find the AF to be more snappy and responsive as the best bodies from both Nikon and Canon that I have ever used--until now this does not include the D4, which, together with the 1DX, would be the only camera more responsive than the 5D3. With a lens like the Tamron 60mm f/2.0 Macro for Canon, on the other hand, AF is not as "snappy," but here the culpability lies with the lens rather than the body. (That lens is excellent, by the way--it is just noisy and slow due to its not being equipped with the latest silent focusing motors.)

And the low light EV -2 sensitivity of the 5D3 is absolutely for real, not a marketing gimmick. I was shooting in theatre/jazz production Thursday evening and had no problem focusing anywhere in the dark theatre--and I'm not talking about the stage, but about the audience. Starting with ISO 25K, f/1.4, 1/10th of a second and even darker than that--it could nail focus like magic. It was necessarily to precisely aim the selected focus point at the subject, but it was easy and felt nearly too good to be true.

 

[Loswr]

But clearly it is not a game changer like the Nikon D800.

Since 18-22 MP is more than sufficient for me, a 36 MP camera with noise performance that falls apart above ISO 1600 doesn't seem like a game changer to me...

OTOH, adding a pro-level AF to the already-excellent IQ of the 5DII makes the 5DIII a game-changer in my book. How much better is the 1D X? It's better in many ways that are important to me, which - to me - is what matters. If the differences don't matter to you, don't pay for them.

As a side note, if the D800 is a 'game changer' because of its 36 MP, does that mean the D4 is junk?

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

But clearly it is not a game changer like the Nikon D800.

As a side note, if the D800 is a 'game changer' because of its 36 MP, does that mean the D4 is junk?

Lol people are still soooo hung up on mp... I'm going from 21 to 18 this time round and not given it a seconds thought.

 

[V8Beast]

With all due respect, I must disagree here. What lens(es) are you using and what AF settings when you say that the 5DIII is not as snappy or responsive in autofocusing as the 1DII?

Let me say up front that I'm still learning the 5DIII's AF system, so I haven't had a chance to really tweak the settings or put it through the ringer just yet. I don't need fast glass for the type of shooting that I do, so my long lens of choice is a 70-300L. With that lens on the 1DII, the camera does an excellent job of tracking subjects in AI Servo in auto AF selection mode (the one where the camera chooses from all 45 points). Using this same setup on the 5DIII, particularly in low light, it takes longer to acquire focus than the 1DII.

That said, if I switch over the zone or one of the AF point expansion settings, the 5DIII acquires focus much more quickly. I still need much more time to practice with the 5DIII, but this arrangement is probably how I'll use the AF for moving subjects from now on.

 

[V8Beast]

Since 18-22 MP is more than sufficient for me, a 36 MP camera with noise performance that falls apart above ISO 1600 doesn't seem like a game changer to me...

I thought it's the D800's DR advantage over the 5DIII, which several reviewers have said is hardly even noticeable in side-by-side testing, that makes it a game-changer?

 

[briansquibb]

Lol people are still soooo hung up on mp... I'm going from 21 to 18 this time round and not given it a seconds thought.

I went from 21mp to 16mp and it was the best move

 

[Axilrod]

The jury is clearly out on the 5DIII. Marginal if any improvement in IQ, better auto focusing and slightly better resolution at high ISO. But clearly it is not a game changer like the Nikon D800.

I don't know what reviews you have been reading, but there are plenty of very positive reviews out there and plenty of happy users. The only reason it seems like there is a lot of negativity is because of the fact that it ended up being too expensive for some and they had been waiting forever. I'm very happy with mine and it's definitely a big improvement over the 5DII, I mean it has the same autofocus as the camera you're waiting on.

And I'd assume that the 1DX will definitely be superior with a price that's twice as high. I think the 1DX is going to be awesome for sports shooters, 12fps is sick. But then again I think some people just want it so they can say they have the best camera Canon makes. But I think the 5DIII is awesome either way.

 

[briansquibb]

And I'd assume that the 1DX will definitely be superior with a price that's twice as high. I think the 1DX is going to be awesome for sports shooters, 12fps is sick. But then again I think some people just want it so they can say they have the best camera Canon makes. But I think the 5DIII is awesome either way.

I can see me having a 1Dx, keeping the 1D4 for the crop and F/8 focussing

 

[JR]

There is no dounbt in my mine the 1DX will be better. Not sure if many of you saw some of the 1DX RAW file posted in another thread today but they look very good. Most of them were shot with a 24mm 1.4L II and let me tell you shooting ISO 12800 with a 24mm is pure insanity. However looking at these file from the 1DX, I was really impressed.

Even if it give us only 1/2 to 1 stop better ISO performance in theory, in practice these ISO will look better I beleive due to its metering system and I suspect higher DR at higher ISO compared to the mkIII...

 

[cps_user]

I think you will be dissapointed if you really think the 1dx is going to be better IQ-wise.

Don't really think noise at 12800 is that much better than 5d3 to be honest. And a first quick test with some pulling of that iso 250 file doesn't prove very promising in terms of dynamic range.

This test done by a Dutch website clearly demonstrates that, in certain circumstances, the superior DR on the 800 can actually be used and seen: http://www.digifotopro.nl/content/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800-dynamisch-bereik

In short, much more room for correction without killing the image.

In particular in cases where you want to push deep shadows and pull highlights, and do heavy dodge and burn in lightroom for example, I'm positive the D800/D4 chips will give you a clear benefit over the 5d3/1dx.

In a lot of situations you won't see sensor advantages however.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

I think you will be dissapointed if you really think the 1dx is going to be better IQ-wise.

Don't really think noise at 12800 is that much better than 5d3 to be honest. And a first quick test with some pulling of that iso 250 file doesn't prove very promising in terms of dynamic range.

This test done by a Dutch website clearly demonstrates that, in certain circumstances, the superior DR on the 800 can actually be used and seen: http://www.digifotopro.nl/content/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800-dynamisch-bereik

In short, much more room for correction without killing the image.

In particular in cases where you want to push deep shadows and pull highlights, and do heavy dodge and burn in lightroom for example, I'm positive the D800/D4 chips will give you a clear benefit over the 5d3/1dx.

In a lot of situations you won't see sensor advantages however.

Indeed. For me I push the shadows but not more than a few stops.

The bigger difference for me is the overall image, which comes down to the lens. For that reason alone id stick with canon. That said usable 12800 will be helpful for more dof and 3200 with shadows that you can push - they will be both be helpful.

 

[briansquibb]

Don't really think noise at 12800 is that much better than 5d3 to be honest. And a first quick test with some pulling of that iso 250 file doesn't prove very promising in terms of dynamic range.

As the 1D4 is decent at 12800 I would be surprised if the 1DX didn't manage an extra stop

 

[JR]

Don't really think noise at 12800 is that much better than 5d3 to be honest. And a first quick test with some pulling of that iso 250 file doesn't prove very promising in terms of dynamic range.

As the 1D4 is decent at 12800 I would be surprised if the 1DX didn't manage an extra stop

Me too! At least 1 to 1.5 stops over the 1DIV i think.