# 1DX vs 1D IV ??



## Crapking (Jan 19, 2012)

Had the guilty pleasure of renting a ID IV this weekend to serve as a second body (to my 7D) to shoot indoor volleyball tournament. While I am not a paid professional (yet), I am striving to take me vision to the next level, and despite nice lenses, the low-light challenges continue to plague some of my shots with unpleasant noise. While I think about light, in my world I cannot control it very much, so I am forced to think more about my gear  but only in so much as it helps me achieve on paper (and computer screen) what I 'see' in my mind, and what my clients (players/parents/coaches) can treasure forever.
While I was able to get more 'usable' shots with the 1D IV in the higher ISO ranges (4000-12,800), I'm curious to the potential of the 1DX in this setting vs the 1D IV. I have not yet seen output from the 1DX, and wondering should I expect $2K 'better' high ISO performance. I have almost weekly tournaments to shoot between now and June, and am debating whether to take the plunge now and get my own 1d IV or 'tough' it out with only a single body till the 1Dx comes out. I also have the trip of a lifetime this August (Galapagos Islands) and will 'need' the second body there as well. Are the 7D and 1D IV too close in function and therefore should I wait till the FF 1Dx is available?? While both pricey, the 'extra' $2K has me wondering how much more useful the 1Dx will be c/w the 1D IV ??


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 19, 2012)

i am hoping used 1D4 prices come down once the actual 1Dx start hitting the streets but i'm keen on getting it mostly for the 1.3 crop and higher res with better high iso over the 1D3 i have. 
but i'm also keen to see if a new 7D2 might suit my needs too so i'm just in a holding pattern at the moment. if you can handle the extra cost of the 1Dx it will no doubt be an outstanding camera, but unless you have a pre-order you might be waiting quite a while...


----------



## pwp (Jan 19, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i am hoping used 1D4 prices come down once the actual 1Dx start hitting the streets but i'm keen on getting it mostly for the 1.3 crop and higher res with better high iso over the 1D3 i have.
> but i'm also keen to see if a new 7D2 might suit my needs too so i'm just in a holding pattern at the moment. if you can handle the extra cost of the 1Dx it will no doubt be an outstanding camera, but unless you have a pre-order you might be waiting quite a while...



(I think) Dr Neuro explained fairly persuasively that the x1.3 crop on the 1D4 vs the FF 1DX is essentially meaningless. Cropping a 1DX file in post to a x1.3 value will deliver a file almost indistinguishable from the 1D4 file. Want to chime in here Dr Neuro?

When you factor in the improved AF, iso, big bright viewfinder etc it's probably going to be worth dropping that extra couple of $k on the 1Dx. As a very happy 1D4 shooter, I initially took some convincing on this, but now feel comfortably persuaded. The 1DX pre-order stays. 

But yes, a low priced 1D4 would be a useful upgrade over the 1D3, especially if your work relies on high performance AF. 

Paul Wright


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2012)

pwp said:


> (I think) Dr Neuro explained fairly persuasively that the x1.3 crop on the 1D4 vs the FF 1DX is essentially meaningless. Cropping a 1DX file in post to a x1.3 value will deliver a file almost indistinguishable from the 1D4 file. Want to chime in here Dr Neuro?



Can't know for sure until RAW files are available, but in theory yes, you probably won't notice any significant IQ difference between a 1.3x cropped 1D X image and an uncropped 1D IV image. You'd have to be ok with the resulting 10.5 MP file size, of course. Going the other way, if you're not focal length-limited, the uncropped 1D X image will have better IQ (and slightly more MP) than the uncropped 1D IV image. Note that I'm referring to RAW file IQ, ignoring the better jpg engine of Digic5+.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 19, 2012)

pwp said:


> (I think) Dr Neuro explained fairly persuasively that the x1.3 crop on the 1D4 vs the FF 1DX is essentially meaningless. Cropping a 1DX file in post to a x1.3 value will deliver a file almost indistinguishable from the 1D4 file. Want to chime in here Dr Neuro?



No chance of this i'm afraid
have a look at the iso samples indicating the crops here with the 18MP vs 16MP
http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-IV-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

edit: if you apply a 1.3 crop to the 1Dx resolution of 5184 x 3456 you get 3987x2658 which is 10.6 MP or basically the 1Dmk3


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 19, 2012)

Crapking said:


> Are the 7D and 1D IV too close in function and therefore should I wait till the FF 1Dx is available?? While both pricey, the 'extra' $2K has me wondering how much more useful the 1Dx will be c/w the 1D IV ??



If you are into sports the AF of the 1D4 alone puts it above the 7D by a long way. Almost every function works better than the 7D, particularly the IQ at high ISO. I went from the 7D to the 1D4 and was blown away by the improvements all round

Why not get a used 1D4?


----------



## revup67 (Jan 19, 2012)

I called Canon support on that 1Dx - the Digic 5+ processors alone may be worth ignoring the 1D IV. The dual Digic 5+ processors (so I was told) are 6 times faster and create approximately 75 percent less noise than the DIGIC 4 processor. The rep stated this results in a lesser need for larger MB's files hence why the MB is lower then most of its similar predecessors. RAW images can be processed at 12 fps as well. That's not to mention a boat load of other cool features such as dual storage cards that can be programmed in a variety of ways (such as a real time backup or extended disk space - you choose), bracketing with 9 exposures..the list goes on. My gut instinct (being in IT) always says if you can afford it go forward with technology not backward.

Rev
PS I hope my wife doesn't read this thread.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 19, 2012)

revup67 said:


> I called Canon support on that 1Dx - the Digic 5+ (not Digic 5) processors alone may be worth ignoring the 1D IV. The dual Digic 5+ processors (so I was told) are 6 times faster and create approximately 75 percent less noise than the DIGIC 4 processor. The rep stated this results in a lesser need for larger MB's files hence why the MB is lower then most of its similar predecessors. RAW images can be processed at 12 fps as well. That's not to mention a boat load of other cool features such as dual storage cards that can be programmed in a variety of ways (such as a real time backup or extended disk space - you choose), bracketing with 9 exposures..the list goes on. My gut instinct (being in IT) always says if you can afford it go forward with technology not backward.
> 
> Rev


I dont doubt it for a second that the 1Dx will overall be better than the 1D mk4
there are however 2 things that the 1Dmk4 has you can't get anywhere else
1) 1.3 crop I want this for using my 16-35 f2.8 as a walkaround effectively 20-48mm and for getting the extra reach on using long lenses. but has better IQ than the 1.6 crops
2) AF at f8 long lenses and teleconverters coupled with item 1 it stomps the 1Dx on the long end.

Ideally i would prefer not to have the bulk of a 1 body which is why i'm holding out for info on the next 7D and just continue with the 1D3 for now


----------



## willrobb (Jan 19, 2012)

If canon is willing to loan me a 1DmkIV and a 1DX for the next two years I'd be more than happy to test out all their similarities and differences and answer all the technical questions as best I can


----------



## revup67 (Jan 19, 2012)

> 1) 1.3 crop I want this for using my 16-35 f2.8 as a walkaround effectively 20-48mm and for getting the extra reach on using long lenses. but has better IQ than the 1.6 crops
> 2) AF at f8 long lenses and teleconverters coupled with item 1 it stomps the 1Dx on the long end.



Ok gotcha on the (1) though I just read surprisingly on the-digital-picture.com that the current 7D has better resolution than the 1D IV (however) it is not as sharp with the settings on 1 but you sure get the tradeoff with that 1.6 extra reach so know what you mean on item (2). Used a 400mm today on the 7D bringing it to a 640 - that was a treat with wildlife photos. Also used the 16-35 mkii like you with the 7D - most pleased. If you are concerned with IQ, check out the DLA's on your camera choices as well (1DIII, 1D IV, 7D, etc). Though diffraction doesn't have a huge impact it can affect IQ as well. it's just one more thing compounded to reduce the IQ of your overall picture


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 19, 2012)

You have only to look at the background blur and the shallower DOF is nice too from the 1D4

The leap from a 1.6 to a ff is huge leap in terms of thinking about what a lens does. Take a 70-200 for example - on a 1.6 this is a medium telephoto, on a ff it is a portrait lens. A 17-40 on a ff is an ultra wide, on a 1.6 it is a kit lens.

The jump from the 1.6 to a 1.3 is not such a big leap - the use of a 1.4 converter on the 1D4 brings back the reach without significant IQ loss whereas the 17-40 is now a useful wide ... and my TSE-24 becomes a useful 32mm and my 180 macro gives me almost 5DII IQ whilst taking me further away from the insects and getting the better AF.

PS 1D4 can do 7 bracketed shots


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> .
> 
> The jump from the 1.6 to a 1.3 is not such a big leap -



It is quite a big leap in terms of dof and IQ. And it's the same leap up to FF from 1,3 crop. After using the 1d4 for two years, and selling it, I know borrow my gf's 5d2, and the difference in smooth background and overall feel of the 5d makes my 1d4 look like the 7d when I had the mk4. 

For me, the only SLR, is a fullframe now. It is such a huge difference in IQ from the crop-sensors. The difference in noise between 100-400 iso between mk4 and 5d2 is HUGE. The 5d has none, but the mk4 has too much. It doesn't get much more noise as you climb the iso-ladder, but dissapointing to see what you get at 100-400. Now, the 1d X needs to get here fast, I miss my AF...


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 19, 2012)

Viggo said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



I was referring to the impact on lens use ...

I am amazed that you think there is a HUGE difference in ISO peformance - I can only assume you are pixel peeping because I cant see any noise from the 1D4 on my A3 prints. Glad to hear you like the smooth background of the 5DII - I got a lot of smites when suggesting the background of the 5DII was better that of a crop ... As Neuro says - the 1D4 is a compromise camera - it is nearly the best at everything.

The 1Ds3 has a much better AF than the 5D, is full frame and available now .... used prices have tumbled since the 1DX anouncement


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I was referring to the impact on lens use ...
> 
> I am amazed that you think there is a HUGE difference in ISO peformance - I can only assume you are pixel peeping because I cant see any noise from the 1D4 on my A3 prints. Glad to hear you like the smooth background of the 5DII - I got a lot of smites when suggesting the background of the 5DII was better that of a crop ... As Neuro says - the 1D4 is a compromise camera - it is nearly the best at everything.
> 
> The 1Ds3 has a much better AF than the 5D, is full frame and available now .... used prices have tumbled since the 1DX anouncement



Well, pixel-peeping, I do all editing at 100% crop, so if that's pixelpeeping, then yes. But it IS a huge difference. Especially when applying sharpening, you can see the noise pops out right away with the mk4, but the 5d you can really push it, and it just gets sharper. Shadow areas are much cleaner (This is all Lightroom-processed) Maybe that handles the file better from the 5d? But my guess is , as you said, it's a jack of all trades. I'm hoping for the 5d-IQ with all other things being a true 1-series speedfreak for the 1d X. I'm testing a BETA-X on 26 and 27th of january, I can try to post what I learn from actually use it here. I didn't get to use my own memorycard, so no pictures, but I will surley scrutinize and pixel-peep way beyond ;D


----------



## nikkito (Jan 19, 2012)

You should get the 1D X. Full Frame rocks


----------



## Picsfor (Jan 19, 2012)

Mmmm, the 1D series has never really set me alight until the 1DX, and i've had a play with them all.

the 1DX really is a different beast, and i really do have a hankering to become a proud owner. As my 'every day camera is a 5D2 with battery grip' - carting a 1DX around would make no difference in bulk and weight - but a helluva lot of difference in performance and 'keepers'.

But as always, the choice is yours...


----------



## Crapking (Jan 19, 2012)

Appreciate all the feedback, but would like even more personal experiences with the ISO/AF 'differences' between the 7D , 1dIV and speculation about the 1Dx. 

With only a single weekend's experience with the 1dIV, swapping back and forth with 7D, I didn't see a DRAMATIC improvement in capture rate of the AF with 1dIV. Shooting moving targets in the 'dark', I use ZONE selection with the 7D sometimes, and overall I don't miss many shots b/c of AF. However, with all the individual points on the 1dIV, it seemed to take me longer to cycle through to where I needed them. Maybe I just needed to get more familiar with the 1dIV? but i missed the ZONE and 4 point expansion options. 
To be sure, the 1Dx is bringing the AF to a new level, so that is definitely a plus there over the 1dIV. 

With respect to ISO / low-level performance though, I obviously saw improvement between the 7D and 1dIV. Shooting with the 7D at max 3200 mostly, I have come to deal with the noise, but am limited in really dark gyms. I was able to shoot 4000-12,800 with 1dIV in this dark environment, but did have quite a bit of noise, most of which cleaned up in ACR pretty well. But with hundreds of shots, it does take time. What I should have done was take the same type shot with both bodies at the same ISO to compare noise but this was my first 2 body shoot and I was simply too busy focused on having 2 different lenses/options available and didn't really plan enough on a head-head comparison, my bad. 

Will the 'improved' 1Dx ISO performance mean:
1). I will have less noise to clean at 2000-3200, or 
2). I will be able to capture shots in the dark gyms where I currently don't get anything very usable. 
3). A little of both (?) 

Other features/benefits aside, how much better can we expect the 1Dx to (out)perform the 1dIV ? With my shooting style and gym limitations, I can accommodate to the FF vs 1.3 vs 1.6 reach / lens issues with my arsenal, and I am improving my positioning and shot planning at every venue, but I am wavering as to the real-world improvement in the image quality. Both will be better than my 7d, but HOW much??

Examples

1dIV ISO 6400 135 @2.2 Tv in a really dark gym




PVC18Yellowreedits1D093 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

7d ISO 3200 135 2.2 Tv in a slightly better lit gym





PVC16Black7d014 by PVC 2012, on Flickr


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > (I think) Dr Neuro explained fairly persuasively that the x1.3 crop on the 1D4 vs the FF 1DX is essentially meaningless. Cropping a 1DX file in post to a x1.3 value will deliver a file almost indistinguishable from the 1D4 file. Want to chime in here Dr Neuro?
> ...



The ISO samples on the TDP review aren't relevant to this issue - those are scaled equivalently across sensor resolutions (i.e. the more MP, the bigger the image). The issue being discussed is what happens when you crop the FF image to the FoV of a 1.3x crop, or even a 1.6x crop. The answer is that for approximately equivalent sensor technology, the images aren't too different in terms of IQ, although obviously with the cropped image you end up with far less resolution after cropping. The crop magnifies the effect of IS noise, alters the DoF along with the framing, etc. 

Put another way, if you buy a FF camera but then have to crop all your images to 1.3x or 1.6x FoV, you're throwing away the IQ advantages of FF over the smaller sensors, and so you might as well just get the cheaper camera (from an IQ standpoint). Conversely, if you only need to crop a few of your images, the IQ with the FF will be a decided advantage. That might mean getting longer lenses to compensate for the loss of 1.3x crop...which suits Canon just fine...


----------



## Crapking (Jan 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...



So if I am able to frame what I need with FF or the 1.3, then my IQ (image quality, not my intelligent quotient ) will be NOTICEABLY improved over my 7d images? I am not a pixel peeper but when I enlarge posters to 16x24, should I expect cleaner/sharper images, or at this size, is it only a theoretical advantage?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2012)

Crapking said:


> So if I am able to frame what I need with FF or the 1.3, then my IQ (image quality, not my intelligent quotient ) will be NOTICEABLY improved over my 7d images? I am not a pixel peeper but when I enlarge posters to 16x24, should I expect cleaner/sharper images, or at this size, is it only a theoretical advantage?



Yes, the IQ will be noticeably better than the 7D if you're printing reasonably large and using the whole image (or minimal cropping) from a FF or 1.3x sensor. That's even more true if you're shooting at higher ISO (or alternately, noise will be similar but you can shoot at even higher ISO).


----------



## kennykodak (Jan 19, 2012)

keeping MIV, trading 5DII in towards 1DX.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 19, 2012)

Crapking said:


> but i missed the ZONE and 4 point expansion options.



They are there on the 1D4 - I use expansion by default.

1D4 has:

- left/right expansion
- one point all round(9points)
- 18 point expansion

The 1D4 has a whole bunch of options around the AF and the AF points mostly (from memory) the same as the 7D plus a few extras.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Crapking said:
> 
> 
> > but i missed the ZONE and 4 point expansion options.
> ...



No zone-af or spot-af on the mk4... The X will get the same layout , Q-button, as the 7d..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2012)

Viggo said:


> No zone-af or spot-af on the mk4...



The 1D IV does have Spot AF, however, it's only available when using a supertele with a lens AF stop button. On the 7D, Spot AF is available with any lens.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > No zone-af or spot-af on the mk4...
> ...



Yeah, I know, but to me, it's so stupid to only have it with the supertele's, I left it out on purpose ;D especially since I used to own the 300 2.8 and saw how cool the spot-af really is, only to back to my 85 and miss because it can't do spot...


----------



## revup67 (Jan 23, 2012)

> Put another way, if you buy a FF camera but then have to crop all your images to 1.3x or 1.6x FoV, you're throwing away the IQ advantages of FF over the smaller sensors, and so you might as well just get the cheaper camera (from an IQ standpoint). Conversely, if you only need to crop a few of your images, the IQ with the FF will be a decided advantage. That might mean getting longer lenses to compensate for the loss of 1.3x crop...which suits Canon just fine...



Neuro - this was well stated -so true.

Like some of you, that Spot AF is a necessity for me as well. The 7D spoiled me on this and it's availability with all lenses. It's a must have. Does anyone have a tally as to which currently available Canon DSLR bodies have this feature on FF for all lenses?


----------



## Viggo (Jan 23, 2012)

revup67 said:


> > Put another way, if you buy a FF camera but then have to crop all your images to 1.3x or 1.6x FoV, you're throwing away the IQ advantages of FF over the smaller sensors, and so you might as well just get the cheaper camera (from an IQ standpoint). Conversely, if you only need to crop a few of your images, the IQ with the FF will be a decided advantage. That might mean getting longer lenses to compensate for the loss of 1.3x crop...which suits Canon just fine...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, the 1d X.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 23, 2012)

Viggo said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Crapking said:
> ...



I think perhaps an explaination is needed on the 1D4 AF

- the 1d4 has 45 AF points of which 39 are cross type at f2.8 or higher with the vertical line twice as sensitive as the horizontal
- for f/4 lens 44 points are horizontal ine sensitive with the centre point being cross type _*EXCEPT*_:

for these f/4 lens all 39 are cross types:
EF17-40mm f/4L USM, 
EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM,
EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM + Extender EF1.4X II,
EF200mm f/2L IS USM + Extender EF2X II,
EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM + Extender EF1.4X II,
EF400mm f/2.8L IS USM + Extender EF1.4X II

- AF expansion - 3 options here

* left/right - 2 points, used typically for panning
* surrounding - 7 points. (7D only uses 5 in the centre, 4 at the edges)
* 6 above and below and three each side of the selected, 19 points (equivalent in the 7D zoning which uses just 9 points in the centre or 5 points top,bottom,left and right ) The 1D4 version of zoning is far better off centre

The greater number of AF points in the 1d4(45) means that they are significantly closer than the 7D(19) points

I would suggest then that the 1D4 AF is better than the 7D as you might expect


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> - AF expansion - 3 options here
> 
> * left/right - 2 points, used typically for panning
> * surrounding - 7 points. (7D only uses 5 in the centre, 4 at the edges)
> * 6 above and below and three each side of the selected, 19 points (equivalent in the 7D zoning which uses just 9 points in the centre or 5 points top,bottom,left and right ) The 1D4 version of zoning is far better off centre



Just to clarify your clarification  that's not how Zone AF works. Expansion (whether 2 points, 7 points, or 19/45 points) means it uses your manally selected single point, and the additional expansion points are used _only_ if the subject moves away from the manually selected point, or if the manually selected point cannot achieve a focus lock.

Zone AF is similar to fully automatic AF point selection, in that the camera will select the AF point on the closest subject, but Zone AF restricts that automatic selection to a specific region of the field of view.

The 1D X will have Zone AF like the 7D, and also two expansion options (4 points in a 'plus' shape or all 8 surrounding points).


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > - AF expansion - 3 options here
> ...



Yes - I should have made that clearer. Now that the 7Ds have gone the detail about the finer points have been replaced by the 1D4 finer points 

It would be interesting to know how people use the various AF options. I would be interested to know if the AF point on the 1D4 are the same size as the 7D or whether, as I suspect, they are smaller.

I use the surrounding points expansion by default, but switch to 19point expansion for fast moving subjects


----------



## Crapking (Jan 23, 2012)

As the OP, I again thank you for your insights - I didn't have enough time last weekend to fully explore the AF of the 1d and (mistakenly) undervalued it c/w my 7D. I trust the additional time I will have with it (now that I hit the "Proceed to Checkout" button  ), will allow me to better compare all of these options. I also trust the incremental ISO / noise performance over the 7D will allow me the freedom to push my low light vision. Ultimately, as so many others have said, why wait? It is a great camera and I know I will be using it ALOT between now and whenever I might be able to get my hands on a 1Dx (as I have been unable to secure a pre-order). Again, thanks for helping me decide.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> It would be interesting to know how people use the various AF options. I would be interested to know if the AF point on the 1D4 are the same size as the 7D or whether, as I suspect, they are smaller.



They are the same size, which makes perfect sense from an optics standpoint. Canon uses the same 48-bit lines for their sensors (sometimes in offset pairs they call 'dual zig zag'), and an f/2.8 baseline is the same physical size regardless of sensor format. If you take an image of a 1D IV AF sensor and superimpose it on an image of the 7D sensor, you can rotate one of them 45 degrees and see that the spacing of the f/2.8 lines is the same for both. That's physics. 

The exception is the center point on some 1-series bodies, where 96-bit lines are used (same length, twice the density, which is how they manage accuracy equivalent to Canon's normal f/2.8 and f/5.6 at f/4 and f/8, respectively). 

Sidebar: that 'trick' may be exactly how Nikon is offering many f/8 points on the D4 - they have the lines spaced at f/8 spacing, but gave them double density to make up for the shorter baseline.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 23, 2012)

Cheers neuro ;D ;D ;D


----------

