# 1dx, or d800e?



## Tcapp (Oct 13, 2012)

So I have been lusting after a 1dx for a while. Almost, (but not quite), have the funds for it. But I'm not sure I NEED it. I currently have a 7d and 5d3. 

I have three options. 

Sell the 7d to help fund a d800e purchase, then shoot my 5d3 along side d800e for work and pleasure. I figure they compliment each other pretty well. 5d3 for low light, candid shots (Im a wedding photog) and speed, then the 800e for posed portraits that would print large, and macro. plus i really want to do more landscape work (non paid). 

option 2, sell the 5d3 to help fund a 1dx. Its a 1dx. Awesome. Do I NEED it? eh. Would it be a dream come true? YES. SO i would shoot my 1dx at weddings, and almost never touch the 7d. so I'll have one camera and be switching lenses all the time (like I do now, why touch a 7d when i have a 5d3). 

Option 3. Buy neither, keep saving, and someday, in the fairly distant future, get a 200 f2. Dream lens. Would use it for posed portraits, but not candids as I love to be able to zoom during ceremony with my 70-200 2.8 is II. 


I know shooting duel systems can be a pain, but I like the idea of being able to buy just about ANY lens, no limits, best of both worlds type of thing. 

Thoughts? Experiences? Would the 1dx just be SOOOO awesome that I wouldn't even touch a d800e if i had one?


----------



## peederj (Oct 14, 2012)

Rent the D800e for a weekend and see if it's all that.

If I'm you and money is this much of an object, I'd get the 200/2, maybe selling off the 7D and picking up a used T2i as a backup if you feel you need one.

Having to juggle two completely different systems and mounts would drive me nuts personally. If you're leaving Canon, leave completely.

The D800e has a better sensor and Nikon has the 14-24 and that is certainly a nice landscape kit. You don't have the money it sounds to play in that tool-for-the-job field, so stick with what you have and get more wedding$ till you do.


----------



## risc32 (Oct 14, 2012)

I would hold your ground. I have many makes of cameras, but my digital stuff is canon. It isn't very hard to keep all the little quirks under control when you are dealing with film cameras. but, for me at least, the current state of digital camera tech has gotten so complicated that i'd likely get myself confused if i was swapping between nikon and canon. I would also not like to buy and learn another flash system.


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 14, 2012)

risc32 said:


> I would hold your ground. I have many makes of cameras, but my digital stuff is canon. It isn't very hard to keep all the little quirks under control when you are dealing with film cameras. but, for me at least, the current state of digital camera tech has gotten so complicated that i'd likely get myself confused if i was swapping between nikon and canon. I would also not like to buy and learn another flash system.



I have shot nikon digital before, so I realy doubt I would get confused. Plus, you can reverse the controls on the nikon to make them behave like canon.


----------



## Ryan708 (Oct 14, 2012)

5dIII is my dream, you already got it! 1dx is my dream if I were already dreaming and using my 5dIII. Id go for the 200/2, but im also just shooting a 60D, and my best lens was 450 bucks cant go wrong with any of it im sure


----------



## cpsico (Oct 14, 2012)

It's like comparing a corvette and a dump truck, both are very powerful but have different purposes. Decide on what your real needs are and the answer will be an easy one.


----------



## KurtStevens (Oct 14, 2012)

You have two awesome cameras already. yes the 1dx is hot but its the lens that makes it. Think of that 200f/2 at f/2 slicing your subject out. Sharp as all get out. You'd be creating photos that not a lot of others will be able to. As a wedding photographer myself, why not set yourself apart by providing higher quality of work with a lens like that? 5d3 is perfect for the wedding world. Yes its not 12 fps, but do you need that? Are you missing the moment by not blasting it to death? 

If you got the nikon, you'd have a different set of lenses to deal with as well and I see that as a huge pain in the ass.


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 14, 2012)

Pro photographers in the past must have made way more if a profit with their craft. I doubt they bought every new camera model and switch systems on an annual basis. They are just cameras!


----------



## rpt (Oct 14, 2012)

The only down side to the 1DX I heard on these forums compared to the 5D3 was its shutter noise was louder than that of the 5D3. I think you should consider that...


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 14, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> So I have been lusting after a 1dx for a while. Almost, (but not quite), have the funds for it. But I'm not sure I NEED it. I currently have a 7d and 5d3.
> 
> I have three options.
> 
> ...



Jeez, I dont know how large you'd want to print with the d800e. You can make huge prints already with the 5D3 and don't see the use for the D800e for just portraits. Landscapes is something else entirely.

As for the 200 F/2L, That lens will take you portfolio to the next level. Its an amazing piece of glass.


----------



## Leon (Oct 14, 2012)

The 5D3 is probably the best wedding camera out there, thanks to its silent mode. If you do lots of weddings, keep it.
I wouldn't necessarily add a D800E. Ok, it delivers more detail of course, but I'm guessing your customers usually won't notice the difference. After all, it's 5760x3840 vs. 7360x4912 - that's 28% more per edge. It's definitely something, but is it worth 3k$ + probably at least the same in lenses?
The "new toy factor" will fade after a while and for me it fades quicker with camera bodies than with lenses, so that is really where I would put my money - or maybe flashes, dishes, sofboxes, etc.

btw I myself have a D800 and I love it, perfect camera for my needs, so I'm probably pretty much unbiased.


----------



## PackLight (Oct 14, 2012)

You know, none of you're ideas make goog business sense. I can see that and I don't make my living as a photog.

How ever, all the options look like they would have fun and entertainment value. I would get the Nikon, the 200mm and the 1D X (all of em). If I had to choose Only one this is the order I would go 1D X, then 200mm and last the Nikon.


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 14, 2012)

PackLight said:


> You know, none of you're ideas make goog business sense. I can see that and I don't make my living as a photog.
> 
> How ever, all the options look like they would have fun and entertainment value. I would get the Nikon, the 200mm and the 1D X (all of em). If I had to choose Only one this is the order I would go 1D X, then 200mm and last the Nikon.



You are right. To be honest, i already have everything I need business wise. Although having two full frame cameras would help with my wedding shooting. But that is the great thing about photography, its not JUST a business. Its also what I love to do for fun as well. So the "new toy factor" is really what I'm interested in. If I didn't have to pay rent, and insurance, and car payments, etc. All my money would be spent on photography on equipment and prints. 

And on the 800e idea, I do intend to do a lot more landscapes. I just moved from Florida to the northwest (portland), so for the first time in my life, there are actual landscapes around for me to shoot. There is jack squat in Florida. 

But you all make a lot of sense. no matter what I do, I will end up owning the 200 f2, be it this year, next, or 5 years from now. It WILL happen. Just a matter of time. 

As for a D800e, what I would do is go nikon for my wide angles and macro, and canon for my telephoto. It wouldn't be too confusing. 

But 1dx... God I want you. But not for its framerate. I love the built in grip, the viewfinder, ergonomics, AF, and all those other little bells and whistles that make it such a joy to hold and use. And from what I hear, its AWB is even better, which can cut down on my post processing time. 

Decisions decisions...


----------



## Greatland (Oct 14, 2012)

To put the 5dMKIII and the 7d in the same category as the 1Dx is pathetic....there is no comparison between the 7d and 1Dx for action shooting, and the 5d MkIII is still not near the camera as the 1Dx in those areas where it's strengths are.....if you have the money, what in the world are you waiting for? I had a 7d---in comparison it is garbage. I have a MK IV, great camera, but doesn't come close to measuring up with the 1Dx....


----------



## PackLight (Oct 14, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > You know, none of you're ideas make goog business sense. I can see that and I don't make my living as a photog.
> ...



You have the best canon landscape camera now with the 5D III.

The 1D X would be a better all around camera, and better telephoto camera. This to me seems like the best option you mentioned.

The D800 would be a real good landscape camera. I wouldn't want it as my second body if you do weddings or anything like that. You might be proficient at both but I think mental focus is important and in anything I have done it is always easier to focus on one tool than two different types. One camera you will use more than the other, even in Canon bodies that can be a problem if you do not get enough repetition. I bought a 1D IV to replace my 7D, some months later I picked up my 7D again and it felt alien. I found myself searching for settings that were once second nature. 

Lets face reality for one second, a supertele is fun. I have several myself, but won't this option be more toy than tool? Well of course its not a toy, I really need mine.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 14, 2012)

I own both, 1DX and 5D3. Let me say this. At high ISO, say 12,800, I can still print 8 x 10's or better with very fine detail and no noise with the 1DX with minimal processing, whereras the 5D3 requires a lot more post processing. Also, the 1DX files can pull more shadow detail and highlight recovery. Despite having 3 less MP's, the prints are substantially better. My Nikon buddies who shoot sports, ie D4, say they wish they had a 1DX instead when they look at my RAW files and prints.

I have no experience with the D800/E.


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 14, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I own both, 1DX and 5D3. Let me say this. At high ISO, say 12,800, I can still print 8 x 10's or better with very fine detail and no noise with the 1DX with minimal processing, whereras the 5D3 requires a lot more post processing. Also, the 1DX files can pull more shadow detail and highlight recovery. Despite having 3 less MP's, the prints are substantially better. My Nikon buddies who shoot sports, ie D4, say they wish they had a 1DX instead when they look at my RAW files and prints.
> 
> I have no experience with the D800/E.



The 1dx makes the D4 look like a toy. Sharper, better focus, better resolution, better lens mount, faster frame rate... 

But one thing that the 1dx seems to do that makes me scratch my head is that it exposes differently. I've seen photos that were taken at the same time, same settings, same lens, but the 1dx is about a third stop darker. If I need to expose longer on the 1dx vs the 5d3, to me that defeats the point of the 1dx's cleaner ISO performance. You have any experience with this? Same thing with Nikon cameras, they seem to expose 1/3 to 1/2 stop brighter than canon at identical settings. That would be a pretty nice advantage it seems.


----------



## old_york (Oct 14, 2012)

As you've said you WILL get the 200L at some point, so why not make that priority one....

then over the next six months as we see where Canon's sensors (and the big MP sensor) are going, have a rethink then...there may be something more 800e-like, that will take your current glass. 
(and who knows, if it's in a 1 series body - you'll get all the bells and whistles you're craving now)


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 14, 2012)

old_york said:


> As you've said you WILL get the 200L at some point, so why not make that priority one....
> 
> then over the next six months as we see where Canon's sensors (and the big MP sensor) are going, have a rethink then...there may be something more 800e-like, that will take your current glass.
> (and who knows, if it's in a 1 series body - you'll get all the bells and whistles you're craving now)



True. I wonder, is there anyone on here that owns that lens that could test something for me? I would love to see the difference in bokeh between the 200 f2 @ f2 and the 85 1.2 @ 1.2 & 1.4. Take the same photo with both lenses and compare. Would be an interesting test I think.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Oct 14, 2012)

For what you are doing or plan to do, I'd either pick up another 5D Mark III or 5D Mark II as a backup, AND the 200 f/2L, which is amazing. I'd sell the 7D.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 14, 2012)

I bought a D800 to see what it could do, and a D800E will be similar. For landscape use where DR and lots of fine detail are needed, the camera really shines (assuming you have a supurb lens for it). Thats the rub, you have a very small selection of Nikon lenses that will let you get that maximum resolution from the camera, the 14-24 should do that, or you can get a Zeiss 21mm. Just don't try to find a equivalent to a 135mm L or 100-400mmL, for example.


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 14, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I bought a D800 to see what it could do, and a D800E will be similar. For landscape use where DR and lots of fine detail are needed, the camera really shines (assuming you have a supurb lens for it). Thats the rub, you have a very small selection of Nikon lenses that will let you get that maximum resolution from the camera, the 14-24 should do that, or you can get a Zeiss 21mm. Just don't try to find a equivalent to a 135mm L or 100-400mmL, for example.



I'm wondering if the Nikon 24 1.4 and the sigma 85 1.4 have the resolving power to give me all those beautiful details.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 14, 2012)

I've always bought and wanted better cameras, always been somewhat unhappy with everything. From 400d and the 5d, through the 5d2, 1d3 and 1d4 and the 5d3. Kind of big issues for me with all of them. Then I bought the 1d X, last camera i'll ever buy, do not even remotely care what Canon will replace with it.. Mind>Blown.... every single aspect from build and layout to IQ and functions. I can't stress enough how different from the 5d3 it is...


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 14, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I've always bought and wanted better cameras, always been somewhat unhappy with everything. From 400d and the 5d, through the 5d2, 1d3 and 1d4 and the 5d3. Kind of big issues for me with all of them. Then I bought the 1d X, last camera i'll ever buy, do not even remotely care what Canon will replace with it.. Mind>Blown.... every single aspect from build and layout to IQ and functions. I can't stress enough how different from the 5d3 it is...



Is the banding _really_ improved over the 5d3? I do like to push my shadows a lot, so that is one thing that has been bugging me about my 5d3. I shoot almost exclusively with natural light, so that is a big deal for me. And I know the d800e is amazing at pushing shadows.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 14, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I've always bought and wanted better cameras, always been somewhat unhappy with everything. From 400d and the 5d, through the 5d2, 1d3 and 1d4 and the 5d3. Kind of big issues for me with all of them. Then I bought the 1d X, last camera i'll ever buy, do not even remotely care what Canon will replace with it.. Mind>Blown.... every single aspect from build and layout to IQ and functions. I can't stress enough how different from the 5d3 it is...
> ...



Yeah, I can push the X-files (nerdyhumor) a lot more.

If I want the best possible shadows expose for them and pull down the highlights. For absolute shadowpush the d800 might be better, I don't know. I guess if that is on top of your list of important things. Look into the d800. For me I can get everything as good as I want, so I don't see why I could want a d800 just to push shadows 5 stops....


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 14, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Hehe. x-files. 

But the 1dx might be too heavy for a hike at night, a "star trek" if you will. 

Sorry, that was a stretch. 

But on a more serious note, I think the 1dx might be the best option... Although it is a little more expensive...


----------



## Berswiss (Oct 14, 2012)

Coming back to the original question I would go for the 1Dx and stay away from the D800 or D800e. I have both Nikon and Canon for professional reasons and I am not a fan of one specific brand but.... I love my D3x as well as the D4 but the D800 has some major issues from my point of view. When the AF works and when all the conditions are respected you get great shots and prints. The main issue if the AF performance. It's quite interesting to see that a lot of tests show that the 24-120 or even the 28-300 are better than the 24-70 on the D800 !!! Don' t even try to use a Zeiss with a d800 because the AF assistance is useless. And so on ...
The 1Dx is the best body I ever used in my life. I am coming back from a couple of months on the Silk Road and I stopped using my 5DMkIII after some time. The new 24-70 is outstanding, the 85F1.2 too and the 70-200 is as good as the Nikon. Now, I use my MkIII with the new 40mm as a street camera and the 1DX for serious work.


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 14, 2012)

Berswiss said:


> Coming back to the original question I would go for the 1Dx and stay away from the D800 or D800e. I have both Nikon and Canon for professional reasons and I am not a fan of one specific brand but.... I love my D3x as well as the D4 but the D800 has some major issues from my point of view. When the AF works and when all the conditions are respected you get great shots and prints. The main issue if the AF performance. It's quite interesting to see that a lot of tests show that the 24-120 or even the 28-300 are better than the 24-70 on the D800 !!! Don' t even try to use a Zeiss with a d800 because the AF assistance is useless. And so on ...
> The 1Dx is the best body I ever used in my life. I am coming back from a couple of months on the Silk Road and I stopped using my 5DMkIII after some time. The new 24-70 is outstanding, the 85F1.2 too and the 70-200 is as good as the Nikon. Now, I use my MkIII with the new 40mm as a street camera and the 1DX for serious work.



I think I may go for that 1dx. 

But just to be clear, if I did go for the d800, I wouldn't be putting much stress on the AF system. I would only af for still, posed portraits, and live view MF for landscape, cityscape, and any other "scape" i feel like shooting. 

You guys do make a good argument in favor of the 1dx though. The price is just a hard pill to swallow.


----------



## Jan van Holten (Oct 14, 2012)

rpt said:


> The only down side to the 1DX I heard on these forums compared to the 5D3 was its shutter noise was louder than that of the 5D3. I think you should consider that...



I don't have experience with the 5D3, but compared to the 1D4 it is much less.
You have to find out yourself, do you really need the big megapixel. Or is it more the idea. To whom you accountable explain.


----------



## JBeckwith (Oct 15, 2012)

This one makes by far the most sense to me:


KurtStevens said:


> You have two awesome cameras already. yes the 1dx is hot but its the lens that makes it. Think of that 200f/2 at f/2 slicing your subject out. Sharp as all get out. You'd be creating photos that not a lot of others will be able to. As a wedding photographer myself, why not set yourself apart by providing higher quality of work with a lens like that? 5d3 is perfect for the wedding world. Yes its not 12 fps, but do you need that? Are you missing the moment by not blasting it to death?
> 
> If you got the nikon, you'd have a different set of lenses to deal with as well and I see that as a huge pain in the ass.



If you're looking to really improve your portfolio, you already have the cameras to do it so a great lens is the obvious choice. If you just want to have fun and burst people to death, then by all means maybe the 1DX is the way to go.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 15, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I own both, 1DX and 5D3. Let me say this. At high ISO, say 12,800, I can still print 8 x 10's or better with very fine detail and no noise with the 1DX with minimal processing, whereras the 5D3 requires a lot more post processing. Also, the 1DX files can pull more shadow detail and highlight recovery. Despite having 3 less MP's, the prints are substantially better. My Nikon buddies who shoot sports, ie D4, say they wish they had a 1DX instead when they look at my RAW files and prints.
> ...



The 1DX auto ISO is annoying to be quite frank. If you want to print, and you had used auto ISO, you better either 1. stop using auto ISO and expose to the right, or 2. add quite a bit of exposure in post. It underexposes and this really shows up when you print 8 x 10's. The thing it safeguards against is blown highlights, and that is something you must consider. The 5D3's auto ISO I don't add much exposure in post. Now, keep in mind, this would be with the same general metering, within reason.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 15, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Never hadde any issues like that with auto-iso. Maybe because I have moved the default 0 ev to +5/8?


----------



## tron (Oct 15, 2012)

I wouldn't mess with both Canon and Nikon lenses. You have 2 good Canon bodies. Go for Canon glass.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 15, 2012)

Thanks Viggo, yes, if you want to use auto ISO, you also as 3. change default to +5/8. Good catch.


----------



## risc32 (Oct 15, 2012)

So you guys like the 5dmk3's metering better than the 1dx? i've never really found any one meter to perform much better than any other, but i do remember a few on this site really talking up the 1dx's meter as such an improvement over the 5dmk3. hmmm. yeah, they all get tricked. lately i've been using my 5dmk3 with a +2/3 exp comp. your exp comp works to 5/8ths?


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 15, 2012)

UPDATE.

I just went to the local camera store and played with:

1dx

D800e

200 F2 (nikon cause they didn't have the canon lens, but they are super similar).


Impressions. 
1dx was awesome, but will take a lot of getting used to since all the buttons are in different places, but I'm sure that would be no problem. 

d800e- hate the feel of that thing in my hands. Felt like I was going to drop it. SO smooth on the sides! Button layout was really weird, less intuitive than the 5d3. Not a deal breaker, especially considering the IQ that thing produces. 

200 f2- nothing prepares you for how heavy and awkward that thing is. No way I would carry it around a wedding, and wouldn't be too excited about taking it along on an engagement shoot. It felt so unbalanced on the d800. That said, it produces some stunning bokeh, but for the price and especially the weight, I feel my 70-200 2.8 is II is _good enough_, at least for now. 

I'll tell you more once i process the test shots i took.


----------



## Studio1930 (Oct 15, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> UPDATE.
> 
> 200 f2- nothing prepares you for how heavy and awkward that thing is. No way I would carry it around a wedding, and wouldn't be too excited about taking it along on an engagement shoot. It felt so unbalanced on the d800.



Yeah, a 200/f2 will be unbalanced on a non-pro body without a vertical grip. Put the 200/f2 on a 1 series body and you will notice a big difference (much more balanced). I would not judge the Nikon 200 f/2 on a d800 when you are thinking about getting the Canon 200 f/2 for a Canon body (possibly a 1Dx).

Normally, glass is a better investment than bodies and is kept longer. I would go with the 200 f/2 (which I own and use with a 1Dx).


----------



## Fishnose (Oct 15, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> UPDATE.
> 200 f2- nothing prepares you for how heavy and awkward that thing is. No way I would carry it around a wedding, and wouldn't be too excited about taking it along on an engagement shoot. It felt so unbalanced on the d800. That said, it produces some stunning bokeh, but for the price and especially the weight, I feel my 70-200 2.8 is II is _good enough_, at least for now.



LOL yes, your 70-200 sure is good enough. Forget about a fixed 200 at weddings. Huge lump to carry around and very limited in all the tight corners.
And the DOF at F/2 is so short the tip of her nose will be out of focus when her eyes are focused.


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 15, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > UPDATE.
> ...



That shallow DOF is EXACTLY why I want that lens. Not for candids of course, but for portraits of the couple. Like that all important photo of the couple walking hand in hand down the road...


----------



## Viggo (Oct 15, 2012)

risc32 said:


> So you guys like the 5dmk3's metering better than the 1dx? i've never really found any one meter to perform much better than any other, but i do remember a few on this site really talking up the 1dx's meter as such an improvement over the 5dmk3. hmmm. yeah, they all get tricked. lately i've been using my 5dmk3 with a +2/3 exp comp. your exp comp works to 5/8ths?



You misunderstood, I overexpose on purpose, I like that for my images. And the metering is wayway better than anything I have ever tried.

Try the 5d3 with bright backlit subject and then do the same with the X, you'll notice the X is spot on and the 5d needs about 3 stops compensation.


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 15, 2012)

Viggo said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > So you guys like the 5dmk3's metering better than the 1dx? i've never really found any one meter to perform much better than any other, but i do remember a few on this site really talking up the 1dx's meter as such an improvement over the 5dmk3. hmmm. yeah, they all get tricked. lately i've been using my 5dmk3 with a +2/3 exp comp. your exp comp works to 5/8ths?
> ...



Can the x intelligently spot meter when needed in a backlit situation if its set to something other than spot?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 15, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > risc32 said:
> ...



No, it's inconsistent. You get bright, dark, dark, bright, etc. However, it's not WORSE than the 5D3, it's just in that case it's not better. You have to use spot metering.


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 16, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



OH, ok. Viggo made it sound like the 1dx would nail it when the 5d3 would be way off.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 16, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Tcapp said:
> ...



From my experience with both cameras trying difficult light situations, that is correct.

I hardly ever use the EC on the 1d , I'm not sure why some people don't get those results. Maybe it has to do with me using Ai and iTR tracking making the AE work together with what I focus on. For instance when tracking a backlit face in Average metering I don't at all need to swap to spot. In fact, 99,99% of my 20k shots are in Average mode. Not counting manual strobist stuff...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 16, 2012)

I was commenting on shadows, for instance, at a 1pm football game where home team has white jerseys, and bright sun. Suppose the drive is coming at you, with sun behind the players. If you are to use CWA let's say, and meter in the shadow of the front of the player, the shadow will still be very dark, and you will have to do post processing, sometimes upwards of 100% shadow detail. Spot metering gets it closer, but still not aesthetically pleasing, and you must again, do post shadow recovery. This is with 1DX or 5D3. With CWA, the bright/dark/bright/dark inconsistencies trend the same on both cameras. That is why I use spot metering in those situations. Evaluative is even worse. Evaluative will even the lighting across the scene, and if a white jersey is very bright, forget about it. Metering for the dark shadows is very helpful because with the 1DX files, turning down the highlights works very nicely and is very forgiving. The 5D3 files are pretty good, but not nearly as forgiving as the 1DX.


----------



## Fishnose (Oct 16, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Fishnose said:
> 
> 
> > Tcapp said:
> ...



Yes, I understood that. But the step from 2.8 to 2 isn't worth the hassle/price/weight. The D800 has a really very short DOF as it is - the high resolution adds to shallowness. And makes DOF sweeter.


----------



## Studio1930 (Oct 16, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> The D800 has a really very short DOF as it is - the high resolution adds to shallowness. And makes DOF sweeter.



Ummmm.... ??? I'm not sure I follow that comment. How do you get "short" DOF and how do you get that from a camera body or sensor as opposed to a lens (talking 35mm format compared to other 35mm format and not medium or large format compared to 35mm format)?


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 16, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > Fishnose said:
> ...



I'm having a hard time believing that resolution has ANYTHING to do with DOF. Tell me the science behind that. 

The DoF is determined by the lens. It is what it is before it hits the sensor. Now, sensor SIZE matters, cause you can get closer for the same framing, therefore decreasing DoF. But the density of the sensor should have no bearing on that.


----------



## Shawn L (Oct 16, 2012)

I suspect it has to do with the circle of confusion calculations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Here are CoC values for some cameras: http://www.dofmaster.com/digital_coc.html

The more densely packed the sensor, the smaller a circle of confusion you can resolve, the smaller the DOF (hoping I parsed that right; figuring if I didn't, someone will correct me, though )

Shawn L.


----------



## risc32 (Oct 16, 2012)

after i posted that i thought about how the 1dx has that facial recognition thing and perhaps that info was being used by the metering system. I could see that. heck i do see that, my little panasonic P&S does this. not very quickly, and not perfectly, but it certainly helps(in the case of my P&S). 

Actually, i was shooting some video of my boys riding their bikes the other day and was using some auto mode, probably "p" mode. So i was watching the lcd while recording and a funny thing happened. well, i thought it was funny. little white boxes appeared around my kids faces, and followed them around the frame. plus it looked like it was taking the exposure of my boys faces into account. probably not weird if you are on a 1dx, but i'm on a 5dmk3. i didn't think it capable.


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 17, 2012)

Shawn L said:


> I suspect it has to do with the circle of confusion calculations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion
> 
> Here are CoC values for some cameras: http://www.dofmaster.com/digital_coc.html
> 
> ...




No no no. It has to do with sensor SIZE, not density! :


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 17, 2012)

Update #2

After playing with the files, including upscaling the 1dx to the 5d3 and d800 resolutions, I've concluded that there isn't a TON of difference. Yes, the d800e is sharper at 100% at 36mp, but the 1dx seems to take sharpening much better. 1dx raw vs jpeg is night and day difference too. Amazing, but that is to be expected. 

As for print sizes, ive calculated that the:
1dx = 18x12 at 300dpi
5d3 = 19x13 at 300dpi
d800 = 25x16 at 300dpi
(numbers are rounded)

SO that bump in resolution from 1dx to 5d3 is basically nothing. one inch in print. Up to the d800 seems like a fairly substantial increase in size, but again, not a HUGE difference. 

See below for a comparison of 1dx upscaled to d800e resolution, to compare sharpness. From RAW

The d800e has been sharpened, but the 1dx received more.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 17, 2012)

Food for the thought. I had fun reading this Ken Rockwell article. He may not be entirely right but this reminded me not to worry about my equipment so much and to go out and just take pictures.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm


----------



## Studio1930 (Oct 17, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Shawn L said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect it has to do with the circle of confusion calculations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion
> ...



Exactly! Sensor size is used to determine the circle of confusion which is why medium format looks different than 35mm.

"A standard value of CoC is often associated with each image format"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 18, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I own both, 1DX and 5D3. Let me say this. At high ISO, say 12,800, I can still print 8 x 10's or better with very fine detail and no noise with the 1DX with minimal processing, whereras the 5D3 requires a lot more post processing. Also, the 1DX files can pull more shadow detail and highlight recovery. Despite having 3 less MP's, the prints are substantially better. My Nikon buddies who shoot sports, ie D4, say they wish they had a 1DX instead when they look at my RAW files and prints.
> ...



Nope. Speaking from experience with the cameras, something YOU don't have.


----------

