# Canon 1D MKIV VS 1DX Cameras



## Secretariat (Aug 20, 2012)

At the moment,I own a 1D MKIV and I am tempted and debating of upgrading to to the 1DX camera.Anyway,if I mainly shoot sports,would it be worth it to upgrade from the Canon 1D MKIV to the 1DX?Would I miss the reach factor a lot of 1D MKIV if I switched to the 1DX?How much bettter is the IQ of 1DX than that of the 1D MKIV and is there a big difference?I heard that the AF of 1DX is better than the 1D MKIV in low light shooting.How about in brighter light,how do both cameras AF and IQ compare to each other?And lastly,In what other areas is the 1DX better than the 1D MKIV?
Thanks a in advance.


----------



## charlesa (Aug 20, 2012)

The IQ and AF are better on the 1DX, although missing the extra 1.3 reach of the APS-H sensor could be an issue for sports unless you have glass with longer reach focal length-wise.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 20, 2012)

I shoot with both and the 1DX whips the crap out of the 1D4, IN LOW LIGHT. At low ISO's, not really much difference in real life. Since I have sufficient glass, the extra reach isn't a huge concern but it helps. I put either a 300 or 400 on the 1DX and the 70-200 on the 1D4 and is fantastic combo. The 1D4 cannot be useable above ISO 5000 in my opinion whereas I had keepers at a soccer match of ISO 16000. I didn't really notice any real difference in AF accuracy to tell you the truth. I had just as many misses with both cameras in the low light. However, the IQ is different beginning about ISO 1600 and above. Overall, the 1DX is better, with the 1D4 coming in a close second. The differences exaggerated on spec sheets aren't realized in real life in my opinion and that's exactly why I keep both cameras with me at sporting events. Just evaluate where you'll be shooting. If there isn't much light, like indoor sports or night field sports, the 1DX is superior.


----------



## Phoenix_Canon (Aug 20, 2012)

On July 13, our son , Alex, and I shot photos using 2 separate cameras at a play where two of our grandchildren were part of the cast. 

Alex used the 1D Mark IV, and I used the 1DX body that arrived earlier that day. This shoot was exactly what I wanted to compare lens and bodies. I am ready for all kinds of night events with the new beauty. Alex used the 70-200 mm f/2.8 Mark II lens and because the 1DX is full-frame, I used the 100-400 MM lens.

You can identify which camera was used by moving the mouse arrow to the i(nfo) indicator.

The link - http://redwingsfan.zenfolio.com/p184856908

This Friday, I am shooting the first high school football game for this season using the 1DX and 100-400mm combination. I will report back on results.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 20, 2012)

Phoenix_Canon said:


> On July 13, our son , Alex, and I shot photos using 2 separate cameras at a play where two of our grandchildren were part of the cast.
> 
> Alex used the 1D Mark IV, and I used the 1DX body that arrived earlier that day. This shoot was exactly what I wanted to compare lens and bodies. I am ready for all kinds of night events with the new beauty. Alex used the 70-200 mm f/2.8 Mark II lens and because the 1DX is full-frame, I used the 100-400 MM lens.
> 
> ...



COOL. I have a night soccer match Saturday and I'll have the 300 f/2.8L on the 1DX and the 70-200L on the 1D4 so I can report back on those results as well. Thanks.


----------



## Studio1930 (Aug 20, 2012)

I currently own both the 1D4 and the 1DX. The 1DX is a completely new animal and my keeper rate is now much higher for sports. The auto focus tracking is in a whole new class for the 1DX and I will soon be selling my 1D4 and getting a second 1DX.

I use several different modes of auto focus on the 1DX which allows me to frame my shots more accurately and more quickly than the 1D4. I also have the different scenarios programmed into the C1, C2 and C3 settings which allows me to change dozens of settings on the fly with one button (without looking up from the view finder). There are many other little things I have found that make the 1DX much easier (or better) to use than the 1D4. I have not yet tested IQ but I plan on doing a side-by-side comparison this week.

Also, my AFMA settings have been much closer to zero with the 1DX as compared to the 1D4 but that might just be my camera bodies and your mileage may vary. The higher ISO is very usable on the 1DX. For indoor sports I don't go above 4000 (5000 if I really have to) on the 1D4 but the 1DX allows me to go 16000-20000 without issues. Full frame is a bit different but bigger glass can help.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2012)

Studio1930 said:


> Also, my AFMA settings have been much closer to zero with the 1DX as compared to the 1D4 but that might just be my camera bodies and your mileage may vary.



My adjustments on the 1D X have not necessarily been closer to zero (although some are), but what I have noticed is that the variances are less - when I test lenses at different distances and focal lengths (for zooms), all the values are clustered more tightly and usually all within 3-4 units, compared to the 5DII and 7D where there could be up to 12 unit differences with one lens.


----------



## Secretariat (Sep 27, 2012)

Studio1930 said:


> I currently own both the 1D4 and the 1DX. The 1DX is a completely new animal and my keeper rate is now much higher for sports. The auto focus tracking is in a whole new class for the 1DX and I will soon be selling my 1D4 and getting a second 1DX.
> 
> I use several different modes of auto focus on the 1DX which allows me to frame my shots more accurately and more quickly than the 1D4. I also have the different scenarios programmed into the C1, C2 and C3 settings which allows me to change dozens of settings on the fly with one button (without looking up from the view finder). There are many other little things I have found that make the 1DX much easier (or better) to use than the 1D4. I have not yet tested IQ but I plan on doing a side-by-side comparison this week.
> 
> Also, my AFMA settings have been much closer to zero with the 1DX as compared to the 1D4 but that might just be my camera bodies and your mileage may vary. The higher ISO is very usable on the 1DX. For indoor sports I don't go above 4000 (5000 if I really have to) on the 1D4 but the 1DX allows me to go 16000-20000 without issues. Full frame is a bit different but bigger glass can help.



Forgive the ignorance but what does AFMA stand for?
Thanks.


----------



## simonxu11 (Sep 27, 2012)

Secretariat said:


> Forgive the ignorance but what does AFMA stand for?
> Thanks.


AF Microadjustment


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2012)

Secretariat said:


> Forgive the ignorance but what does AFMA stand for?



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/AF-Microadjustment-Tips.aspx


----------



## Halfrack (Sep 27, 2012)

http://seattletimes.com/html/picturethis/2019258705_green-bay-packers-seattle-seahawks-gif.html

This is where that 12fps would have made for some real fun. I know he shoots Canon, just don't know which body this was with.


----------



## Greatland (Sep 27, 2012)

I took both my MK IV and my newly purchased 1Dx to Katmai late last month and it was no contest. The 1Dx gave me a ratio of keeps to throw aways on my Brown Bear shots of about 4 to 1 more....the 1Dx's autofocus is plain and simple, UNREAL!!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 28, 2012)

Greatland said:


> I took both my MK IV and my newly purchased 1Dx to Katmai late last month and it was no contest. The 1Dx gave me a ratio of keeps to throw aways on my Brown Bear shots of about 4 to 1 more....the 1Dx's autofocus is plain and simple, UNREAL!!



Yeah buddy 8)


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Sep 28, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I shoot with both and the 1DX whips the crap out of the 1D4, IN LOW LIGHT. At low ISO's, not really much difference in real life. Since I have sufficient glass, the extra reach isn't a huge concern but it helps. I put either a 300 or 400 on the 1DX and the 70-200 on the 1D4 and is fantastic combo. The 1D4 cannot be useable above ISO 5000 in my opinion whereas I had keepers at a soccer match of ISO 16000. I didn't really notice any real difference in AF accuracy to tell you the truth. I had just as many misses with both cameras in the low light. However, the IQ is different beginning about ISO 1600 and above. Overall, the 1DX is better, with the 1D4 coming in a close second. The differences exaggerated on spec sheets aren't realized in real life in my opinion and that's exactly why I keep both cameras with me at sporting events. Just evaluate where you'll be shooting. If there isn't much light, like indoor sports or night field sports, the 1DX is superior.




I took the plunge and sold my Mk IV for the 1DX. I shoot some sports but more fashion runway type stuff. I agree that the ISO performance of the 1DX is superior but I have yet to get the most out of the new AF system. I'm still experimenting with tweaking it. Especially AI Servo doesn't seem to lock on reliably. I'm mainly shooting One Shot 90% of the time because I can't trust AI Servo for paid jobs yet. Would you mind sharing what settings (Case) you use and/or if you even use AI Servo? Thanks.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 28, 2012)

DarkKnightNine said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot with both and the 1DX whips the crap out of the 1D4, IN LOW LIGHT. At low ISO's, not really much difference in real life. Since I have sufficient glass, the extra reach isn't a huge concern but it helps. I put either a 300 or 400 on the 1DX and the 70-200 on the 1D4 and is fantastic combo. The 1D4 cannot be useable above ISO 5000 in my opinion whereas I had keepers at a soccer match of ISO 16000. I didn't really notice any real difference in AF accuracy to tell you the truth. I had just as many misses with both cameras in the low light. However, the IQ is different beginning about ISO 1600 and above. Overall, the 1DX is better, with the 1D4 coming in a close second. The differences exaggerated on spec sheets aren't realized in real life in my opinion and that's exactly why I keep both cameras with me at sporting events. Just evaluate where you'll be shooting. If there isn't much light, like indoor sports or night field sports, the 1DX is superior.
> ...



Sure. I shoot mainly sports. I use AI Servo for all of my stuff. Typically, I use Group A lenses, so that I can access all the dual cross type AF sensors. Now, during sports I'll use any of the center vertical points trying to stay with one of the 5 dual cross types, with 4-pt expansion and using either Cases 2, 5, or 6. I will move my "box" around the viewfinder, but using what I stated, I haven't missed focus yet at all in a sporting event. One soccer game I shot 356 photos, all in focus. I leave all tracking sensitivities set in the middle as well. 

Fashion shots? Take advantage of the face recognition feature if you want to focus on the faces of your subjects (I don't know where you focus or how you meter, so I cannot tell you for sure), but if I did that, you can then use ALL 61 points in AI Servo mode, because you can select which individual point to START with, then lock onto the face and the AF system will never let go of the face, and the active AF point will simply move around the grid in the viewfinder staying locked on the face. I'd definitely practice these features before a paid job obviously though. 

These are my basic settings that I always use.


----------



## Bosman (Oct 31, 2012)

Ha! I just noticed the 2x 1dx Brent, Dang! I'm jealous.


----------

