# 1Dx3 - to be honest a bit disappointed



## kirispupis (Feb 26, 2020)

I recently received my 1Dx3, having upgraded from a 1Dx2, and have been putting it through the tests. The following are my opinions from use. No photos, as this isn't a full in-depth review.

AF - my first impression was that it's a lot better. It snaps on quickly and does an excellent job tracking subjects. Since I'm a wildlife photographer, I tried the auto mode. It did a fair job, but I'm going to switch to the other modes (mostly 2 and 3) because it doesn't do the best job with birds that are at rest, then suddenly take off. Mode 3 in the past has worked well for that. I also found that my keeper rate wasn't dramatically better than what I achieved with my 1Dx2. Yeah, it feels better, but the results aren't dramatic.

High ISO - from a comparison with images of similar subjects, it appears to be about the same

Dynamic range - I live in the Pacific Northwest, so ISO 100 is mostly a myth for wildlife. Perhaps at that level there's a DR improvement, but I found it to be roughly the same as the 1Dx2 in the situations I use.

AF point selector - This is pretty cool, but IMHO not worth $6500

Silent shutter - It's more silent than the 1Dx2 and not nearly as annoying. Fps is noticeably higher.

Note that AF through LiveView isn't practical for me, since I always shoot handheld. I simply don't have the ability to track a bird in flight handheld with the back LCD. I do use LiveView for landscapes, but this is not intended to be a landscape camera. I don't use a gimbal because I constantly change positions + subjects. I've shot this way for a number of years and am used to it.

Overall this isn't a bad camera. I haven't found anything really wrong with it, but I just don't see the value over the 1Dx2. I'll give it another day or two of use to see if I change my mind, but right now I'm leaning toward returning it and sticking with the 1Dx2. If the other reviews are correct that AF is awesome with LiveView, then I expect their upcoming mirrorless bodies to be what I need.

Just to be clear, no I'm not going to Sony. I still like Canon and am very excited about the R5 and eventually the R1 + the lens variety is top notch. For my uses, though, the 1Dx3 just doesn't provide much to justify the cost.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 26, 2020)

kirispupis said:


> I recently received my 1Dx3, having upgraded from a 1Dx2, and have been putting it through the tests. The following are my opinions from use. No photos, as this isn't a full in-depth review.
> 
> AF - my first impression was that it's a lot better. It snaps on quickly and does an excellent job tracking subjects. Since I'm a wildlife photographer, I tried the auto mode. It did a fair job, but I'm going to switch to the other modes (mostly 2 and 3) because it doesn't do the best job with birds that are at rest, then suddenly take off. Mode 3 in the past has worked well for that. I also found that my keeper rate wasn't dramatically better than what I achieved with my 1Dx2. Yeah, it feels better, but the results aren't dramatic.
> 
> ...



Thanks for this commentary. It helps cool my GAS, although I pretty well decided for uses similar to you that my few dollars will chase an upcoming R version too.

No video comments?

Jack


----------



## slclick (Feb 26, 2020)

How's the noise and colors? (basically contrasting your findings against Goldwings)


----------



## unfocused (Feb 26, 2020)

Thanks for the comments. I'm anxious to hear more as these cameras get distributed into the world. My primary interest is in autofocus improvements for sports shooting. I'm not surprised that it isn't much of an improvement for birds and wildlife. I had hoped for some high ISO improvement, but from what I'm reading, that seems to mostly be in the processing of jpgs, rather than in the raw files themselves. A quieter shutter would be welcome, although I've solved that problem by buying the R. 

Thanks also for the reasonable, non inflammatory tone. We could use more of that.


----------



## kirispupis (Feb 26, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks for this commentary. It helps cool my GAS, although I pretty well decided for uses similar to you that my few dollars will chase an upcoming R version too.
> 
> No video comments?
> 
> Jack



I can't really comment on video since I never use it. The camera is only for stills.


----------



## kirispupis (Feb 26, 2020)

slclick said:


> How's the noise and colors? (basically contrasting your findings against Goldwings)



Noise and colors are roughly equivalent to the 1Dx2 from what I see.


----------



## CDD28 (Feb 26, 2020)

I'm seriously considering cancelling my order. Any review I've seen from a real world person, non-YouTuber/"influencer," has said the camera is underwhelming. 

I looked at the comparison test photos of high ISO between the 1DX2 and 1DX3, and to me it looks like the 1DX3 shows more noise that is less pleasing. I don't think it's worth paying just shy of $7,000 for essentially a 1DX2 with tweaked AF system and a new AF point selector. The R5 seems much more promising.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 26, 2020)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. And funny enough I felt what you said matched my thoughts going from the 1dx to the 1dx2... and the 1dx2 was quite a bit better AF wise, at first, but like all of them, started missing more and more after 3-4 years of gentle use. And some of your thoughts is exactly why I didn’t want another dslr/1-series. Most issues went away with the R.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 26, 2020)

CDD28 said:


> ...The R5 seems much more promising.



Just a word of caution. Right now, we know next to nothing about how the R5 will actually perform. It is way too easy to project onto a future product what we hope it will be like. The R5 may indeed live up to the hopes and promises of people on this forum, but it may not.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 26, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Just a word of caution. Right now, we know next to nothing about how the R5 will actually perform. It is way too easy to project onto a future product what we hope it will be like. The R5 may indeed live up to the hopes and promises of people on this forum, but it may not.


How dare you come here and make sense ?


----------



## CDD28 (Feb 27, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Just a word of caution. Right now, we know next to nothing about how the R5 will actually perform. It is way too easy to project onto a future product what we hope it will be like. The R5 may indeed live up to the hopes and promises of people on this forum, but it may not.



Very true, but honestly if it has a sensor as good as the 5D4 and eye tracking AF as good as the Sony A7RIV, it lives up to my hopes.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 27, 2020)

kirispupis said:


> I recently received my 1Dx3, having upgraded from a 1Dx2, and have been putting it through the tests. The following are my opinions from use. No photos, as this isn't a full in-depth review.
> 
> AF - my first impression was that it's a lot better. It snaps on quickly and does an excellent job tracking subjects. Since I'm a wildlife photographer, I tried the auto mode. It did a fair job, but I'm going to switch to the other modes (mostly 2 and 3) because it doesn't do the best job with birds that are at rest, then suddenly take off. Mode 3 in the past has worked well for that. I also found that my keeper rate wasn't dramatically better than what I achieved with my 1Dx2. Yeah, it feels better, but the results aren't dramatic.
> 
> ...



If you did not already own a 1D X Mark II and needed to choose between buying a brand new 1D X Mark II for $5,500 (current price at B&H) or a 1D X Mark III for $6,500 (current price at B&H) including a Sandisk 64GB CF Express Card and reader, would it be worth the extra $1000?


----------



## kirispupis (Feb 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> If you did not already own a 1D X Mark II and needed to choose between buying a brand new 1D X Mark II for $5,500 (current price at B&H) or a 1D X Mark III for $6,500 (current price at B&H) including a Sandisk 64GB CF Express Card and reader, would it be worth the extra $1000?



Tough call. Of course, I could always buy a used 1Dx2 for ~$3200.

A friend is letting me borrow his 1Dx2 (in all my excitement, I sent mine to Canon CPS for cleaning before putting it up for sale). I plan to test the two cameras side by side, then make a call.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> If you did not already own a 1D X Mark II and needed to choose between buying a brand new 1D X Mark II for $5,500 (current price at B&H) or a 1D X Mark III for $6,500 (current price at B&H) including a Sandisk 64GB CF Express Card and reader, would it be worth the extra $1000?


I'll answer that; I wouldn't even blink for $1000 but as others have said to sell used and then buy is quite expensive and there is the R5 or ?? carrot on the stick now. To buy a 1DX3 I'd certainly sell the 1DX2 but probably not if I get an R5 for example. But honestly, I shouldn't be buying anything more! 

Jack


----------



## unfocused (Feb 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> If you did not already own a 1D X Mark II and needed to choose between buying a brand new 1D X Mark II for $5,500 (current price at B&H) or a 1D X Mark III for $6,500 (current price at B&H) including a Sandisk 64GB CF Express Card and reader, would it be worth the extra $1000?


Yes.


----------



## kirispupis (Feb 27, 2020)

Thanks to a friend who loaned me his 1Dx2, I was able to perform a short side-by-side comparison this morning. I shot the same subjects (herons bringing sticks back to the nest) with the same light, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. I also used the same AF mode between them, which was mode 4 and cross pattern (5 points shaped like a +).

*First impressions* - The 1Dx3 has a _lot_ more focus points. At first glance it would seem to be no contest. The 1Dx3 through the viewfinder looks light years ahead of the 1Dx2.
*
Subject focus lock - *The 1Dx3 was able to lock onto subjects quicker

*Subjects in constant motion* *parallel to me *- This was pretty much a wash. Both did well

*Subjects moving from still to in motion toward me* - The 1Dx2 hit pretty much every shot here, while the 1Dx3 suffered. The 1Dx3 initially hit, then as the subject moved more it missed.

*Subjects in constant motion toward me* - The 1Dx2 missed a number of shots here, while the 1Dx3 did very well

*Weirdness* - On my 1Dx2, I tended to use the "square" AF selection (9 points in a square). This mode is awful on the 1Dx3 and results in many misses. The + pattern works fine though.

*Image quality* - Since I now have identical results, I can make a final call on this tonight. As already stated, my previous analysis showed them to be pretty much the same.

*Live View AF* - I tried this a little bit on the 1Dx3. On in motion herons it couldn't lock on, so I achieved no shots even when I managed to get them in the LCD (very difficult). I did aim at a few ducks and it picked them up fine, but ducks have never been an AF challenge.

*Small things* - The AF in both full speed and silent is much quieter on the 1Dx3 than on the 1Dx2.

*Verdict* - I'm still forming one, as this is a crucial decision. I plan to shoot at a different location this weekend. The problem is I _want_ to keep this camera, but so far the only differences are 2 fps, two fast card slots (the 1Dx2 slows down if you add a CF card), and a nifty AF selection button. What I want to understand is whether this camera will help increase my keeper rate, but so far I'm doubtful.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 27, 2020)

kirispupis said:


> Thanks to a friend who loaned me his 1Dx2, I was able to perform a short side-by-side comparison this morning. I shot the same subjects (herons bringing sticks back to the nest) with the same light, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. I also used the same AF mode between them, which was mode 4 and cross pattern (5 points shaped like a +).
> 
> *First impressions* - The 1Dx3 has a _lot_ more focus points. At first glance it would seem to be no contest. The 1Dx3 through the viewfinder looks light years ahead of the 1Dx2.
> 
> ...



Thanks for taking the time to outline all these observations. I'd love that AF selector and was hoping it'd be on an R variant.

Jack


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Feb 27, 2020)

kirispupis said:


> Thanks to a friend who loaned me his 1Dx2, I was able to perform a short side-by-side comparison this morning. I shot the same subjects (herons bringing sticks back to the nest) with the same light, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. I also used the same AF mode between them, which was mode 4 and cross pattern (5 points shaped like a +).
> 
> *First impressions* - The 1Dx3 has a _lot_ more focus points. At first glance it would seem to be no contest. The 1Dx3 through the viewfinder looks light years ahead of the 1Dx2.
> 
> ...


Great post - thanks for sharing, and giving a blow-by-blow comparison.
Really interesting that the 1DXIII autofocus seems better at some parts, but not as good on others. Wonder what the focus engineers have been toying with....
Cheers.


----------



## CamsSD (Feb 29, 2020)

I have had the 1Dx mk III's for about three weeks now, having transitioned from the mkII bodies. One thing to consider before going on a deep-dive on raw image noise/color/dynamic range comparisons is that none of the key raw converters (Adobe, Skylum/Luminar, etc.) are most likely using a "final" algorithm for their conversions of the CR3 files from the mkIII. In fact, Capture One still has not released an update to support the camera yet at all. 
In my experience (using Adobe, and Luminar 4) it would seem they have made a few tweaks to the existing CR3 support as a standby until they can refine it further. 
Any comparison between the mkII CR2 file and the mkIII CR3 file is not exactly apples-to-apples because you are comparing a conversion from a "mature" mkII algorithm versus a newer and not necessarily refined CR3 conversion.
I have not gotten out-of-this-world results from any of the raw converters at this point with the mkIII. One might want to wait a bit until the various raw conversion software platforms release a more mature version of raw support for the mkIII before passing judgement. 
Of course there is always DPP... slow, clunky, somewhat imprecise, but if you can beat it into submission you can eke out a nice file with a bit of work. 

As far as the actual cameras:
--I am finding that canon has greatly improved the autofocusing ability of the camera. It locks on much more quickly, it is able to track subjects much more confidently (including ones moving in erratic patterns), and the outside focus points work reliably, even in very low light. The ability to select the focus point on the rear button is awesome, too. 
--The CFExpress cards (although pricey) are awesome. Super fast, no buffer issues and it is great to have two fast cards in the camera instead of a fast card hobbled by a slower card (like the mkII)
--Camera is definitely quieter.
--Improved battery life WITH improved performance is a nice treat (and thank you Canon for keeping the LP-E19 batteries and not making us switch to something new!)
--I think that the files from the mkIII definitely look better than the mkII. Even doing some jpg to jpg comparisons (repeating from above, it is hard to make rock-solid raw comparisons at this point) the files are sharper overall, cleaner at high ISO (and incredibly clean at low ISO, like the mkII) and seem to have better shadow and highlight details. I am fairly happy with the raw conversions I have made so far, mostly with Lightroom, (they definitely take some extra work) but I'm really looking forward to Capture One support, which is my preferred raw editor. 
I think the camera is a worthy upgrade and I have no regrets.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Feb 29, 2020)

I agree with a lot that has been said, my upgrade was not a major cost factor, I got good money for the old Mk2 and sold my 5D4 backup to help fund it (have EOS R backup - soon to be R5). I don't feel that cameras have got "much" better for some time, a good photographer will always get the shot imo, within reason. The Mk3 is not a MASSIVE step forward but it is moving forward, its not a magical camera and still requires setup and skill, and an understanding of the subjects you are going to shoot to get the best from it. I've bashed a few comments on the other thread about poor Mk3 results but they are light hearted and my personal findings only, so no offence to @GoldWing I do listen to what you all have to say. So far I have enjoyed the camera but once the new buzz has worn off its just a camera, then we can get a feeling for it in the real world, I am still happy but it does have some minor quirks over the Mk2, one thing that bugs me in on my desktop workstation (this one Windows 10, i9, GTX1080Ti, 64Mb and so on) when you open a folder with EOS R images and now 1DX3 images it takes a while to index the folder, the Mk2 files where BAM just there ready to search, odd, a codec thing I know but frustrating, can't recall how it is on my Mac, anyway, back to the Mk3, IMO if you are looking to buy it for the new features and are considering the cost of the upgrade then you may want to think long and hard, could I have stuck with the Mk2 absolutely, was the upgrade worth what I paid, no, do I get shots that I could not get before, no, does it miss shot I did get before, unknown! All in all I have taken the miles off my main body, get new features and off set the cost over the time I owned the Mk2, I think of it like changing cars, well not quite true as I run my cars until the wheels fall off, in the light of that I may have had the Mk2 for another 8 years


----------



## kirispupis (Feb 29, 2020)

For those curious, I made a final call about the camera. I decided to keep it, because even though it isn't a huge upgrade, it has enough things that make it worthwhile for me.

Dual CFExpress cards mean a much higher fps. Remember that the 1Dx2 is 12 fps if dual writing to CFast + CF, so the 1Dx3 at 16 fps is noticeably quicker.
When I compared images from the same subjects, ISO, shutterspeed, aperture, and lighting, I did see that the 1Dx3 images are sharper. Is it a huge difference? No, but there is a difference.
Also when I compared the images, I did see a noise improvement in the 1Dx3. I didn't see the 1 stop improvement Canon claimed. It's maybe a half or a third of a stop, but it is better.
The AF selection button is amazing, especially as I get used to it. Once I changed the custom button settings, I can use it to change AF points without pressing another button first. I was able to very quickly change AF points using it, and it pretty much removes the need to have buttons map to two different AF points.
AF does lock on better. In general I'm finding that the AF algorithms have changed, so some things that worked on the 1Dx2 don't work as well on the 1Dx3. I do believe as I get used to it, though, that overall the AF is improved.
Supposedly longer battery life. I haven't verified this, but if it's true - then nice.
On the negative, I really haven't gotten LiveView AF to be that useful. I tried it on a more static subject today - a red-winged blackbird on a reed - but I couldn't get it to lock on, which was very easy through the viewfinder.


----------



## vjlex (Mar 2, 2020)

@kirispupis

Not really related to the topic of this thread, but I checked out your gallery page. That Sienna shot is amazing! I've admired it for quite a while now. I didn't realize it was yours. Congrats!


----------



## Thrashard (Jul 30, 2020)

I've got a 5D Mark III and think Im gonna hold onto it for a long time. Nikon already has 46MP ,so it's really cheap they don't have 30-36 MP.

Hopefully they come out with a Mark IV version. I don't really care for all the video features, and it seems that's what they have focused on most.


----------



## Nelu (Jul 30, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks for taking the time to outline all these observations. I'd love that AF selector and was hoping it'd be on an R variant.
> 
> Jack


I do have the 1DX Mark III and I disabled that AF point selector because it’s interfering with back-button AF use.
It’s moving AF points randomly, even at its lowest sensitivity.
I never owned a 1DX Mark II but I do have the first generation 1DX; there’s no comparison between the first and the third generation.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 30, 2020)

Nelu said:


> I do have the 1DX Mark III and I disabled that AF point selector because it’s interfering with back-button AF use.
> It’s moving AF points randomly, even at its lowest sensitivity.
> I never owned a 1DX Mark II but I do have the first generation 1DX; there’s no comparison between the first and the third generation.


Thanks for that. It'll be interesting to hear the different views on that button. I tend to always have my thumb on it so maybe that would result in what you describe - like I typically am toggling between shutter and back button(s) a lot.

Well, now that a fairly significant amount of information is out on the R5 I'm just as impressed as when the specs were rumoured. I've seen enough AF examples of wildlife that I'm sold on that and it will be super for a change to have an abundance of pixels. I'm sure there will be those moments where I'll miss 1 series features but I won't let that sour my experience. I no longer feel any urge to own a 1DX3; it just wouldn't make any sense for my situation.

It's been fun to watch the antics of the Sony fanboys/girls making comparisons and how 12 MPs is now just fine for a hybrid camera. However, I think I've now had my fill of R5s being on fire and similar spiteful nonsense, so I'll just wait for the serious reviews and purchase when the world becomes more normal. 

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 4, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks for that. It'll be interesting to hear the different views on that button. I tend to always have my thumb on it so maybe that would result in what you describe - like I typically am toggling between shutter and back button(s) a lot.
> 
> Well, now that a fairly significant amount of information is out on the R5 I'm just as impressed as when the specs were rumoured. I've seen enough AF examples of wildlife that I'm sold on that and it will be super for a change to have an abundance of pixels. I'm sure there will be those moments where I'll miss 1 series features but I won't let that sour my experience. I no longer feel any urge to own a 1DX3; it just wouldn't make any sense for my situation.
> 
> ...


Now the furor is dying down I still think my logical upgrade path from 2 1DX II's is to a 1DX III and an R5, I believe they compliment each other well and will enable me to transition to an R1 easily if and when the time comes. I pretty much have the money for the R5 but limited availability and I think the initial swamping of the used market of good 1DX II's will mean the value of them will firm up in a few months. Any way it works out I am in no real rush but looking forwards to the new AF capabilities in both bodies.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 4, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Now the furor is dying down I still think my logical upgrade path from 2 1DX II's is to a 1DX III and an R5, I believe they compliment each other well and will enable me to transition to an R1 easily if and when the time comes. I pretty much have the money for the R5 but limited availability and I think the initial swamping of the used market of good 1DX II's will mean the value of them will firm up in a few months. Any way it works out I am in no real rush but looking forwards to the new AF capabilities in both bodies.


Assuming I own the R5, what rationale would compel me to own the 1DX3 other than it would be in certain respects better than the 1DX2. Live View shooting is not something I do and the viewfinder focus points are all bunched in the centre and don't have the same functionality as Live View. Now if money were no consideration perhaps, and I of course haven't tried the 1DX3. It's the R5 AF that is the killer for me, coupled with the MPs.

Now if R1 has 20 MPs are you going to be happy?

Jack


----------



## john1970 (Aug 4, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Assuming I own the R5, what rationale would compel me to own the 1DX3 other than it would be in certain respects better than the 1DX2. Live View shooting is not something I do and the viewfinder focus points are all bunched in the centre and don't have the same functionality as Live View. Now if money were no consideration perhaps, and I of course haven't tried the 1DX3. It's the R5 AF that is the killer for me, coupled with the MPs.
> 
> Now if R1 has 20 MPs are you going to be happy?
> 
> Jack



Jack my thoughts are the same as yours. I used to own two 1Dx Mk2 and waited until now to purchase two R5s. For me the R5 is a great replacement for the 1Dx Mk2 and at a significantly lower cost. If I want to lower the noise, I can always downsample the 45 MP file to 20 MP.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 4, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Assuming I own the R5, what rationale would compel me to own the 1DX3 other than it would be in certain respects better than the 1DX2. Live View shooting is not something I do and the viewfinder focus points are all bunched in the centre and don't have the same functionality as Live View. Now if money were no consideration perhaps, and I of course haven't tried the 1DX3. It's the R5 AF that is the killer for me, coupled with the MPs.
> 
> Now if R1 has 20 MPs are you going to be happy?
> 
> Jack


None. For what you do the R5 is *the* singular camera for you as it combines the fps of the 1 series with the new generation AF and the resolution you need for cropping.

Personally I have never got on with EVF's so won't go to them 100% yet, the majority of my work is easy to accomplish with 20mp. If I get on with EVF's on a full time basis and the R1 has 20 mp I'd be happy, I'd keep the R5 and sell the 1DX III, but that is a long way off... In the meantime I'll get the R5 first, then upgrade the last 1DX II to a 1DX III and see how I get on with the EFV vs OVF on the main bodies.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 4, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> None. For what you do the R5 is *the* singular camera for you as it combines the fps of the 1 series with the new generation AF and the resolution you need for cropping.
> 
> Personally I have never got on with EVF's so won't go to them 100% yet, the majority of my work is easy to accomplish with 20mp. If I get on with EVF's on a full time basis and the R1 has 20 mp I'd be happy, I'd keep the R5 and sell the 1DX III, but that is a long way off... In the meantime I'll get the R5 first, then upgrade the last 1DX II to a 1DX III and see how I get on with the EFV vs OVF on the main bodies.


Makes sense. I, not having EVF experience, will probably have some complaints in that realm but otherwise John1970 seems to express my thoughts. Of course I hate throwing not so easy to come by $$ away.

John - have you received the R5 yet?

Jack


----------



## deleteme (Aug 15, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> None. For what you do the R5 is *the* singular camera for you as it combines the fps of the 1 series with the new generation AF and the resolution you need for cropping.
> 
> Personally I have never got on with EVF's so won't go to them 100% yet, the majority of my work is easy to accomplish with 20mp. If I get on with EVF's on a full time basis and the R1 has 20 mp I'd be happy, I'd keep the R5 and sell the 1DX III, but that is a long way off... In the meantime I'll get the R5 first, then upgrade the last 1DX II to a 1DX III and see how I get on with the EFV vs OVF on the main bodies.


While I have not laid hands on an R5 I think the EVF may be a real improvement but I do have to agree that the R EVF, while decent is a pain for me outdoors and with glasses.
As far as the sensor I do believe I will not think I died and went to heaven. Sensors are all within a narrow range of excellent among all brands with only slight differences at the extremes of adjustment or lighting. Even then none is a "deal breaker".
The R5 AF and frame rate are the standouts for stills shooters.


----------



## reef58 (Feb 10, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> Assuming I own the R5, what rationale would compel me to own the 1DX3 other than it would be in certain respects better than the 1DX2. Live View shooting is not something I do and the viewfinder focus points are all bunched in the centre and don't have the same functionality as Live View. Now if money were no consideration perhaps, and I of course haven't tried the 1DX3. It's the R5 AF that is the killer for me, coupled with the MPs.
> 
> Now if R1 has 20 MPs are you going to be happy?
> 
> Jack



I know this is an older thread, but I made a YouTube video on this very subject. I have both the 1dx3 and the R5. I shoot outside and in all kinds of weather. In bad weather I am grabbing the 1 series. I actually plan to use the 1d for video and the R5 for stills. I can also leave the 1dx3 on and it doesn't overheat. The animals where I film are skittish so that makes a difference. The 1dx3 has lots of little advantages as does the R5. Depends on what you shoot.


----------



## tron (Feb 19, 2021)

I will be a little heretic here. I believe that there are cases where 1DxIII would make a better solution for birding. One case is - as mentioned in other places and Alan have mentioned too - when the bird target is in front some time R5 fails to focus and focus at the background (at least this is what it has done with 400II+2XIII so I guess with a smaller magnification it would behave even worse.

I tried to shoot a chiffchaff behind/among the leaves of a big plant and my R5 with 400DOII (no TC) failed MISERABLY. The result was a total blur. I was using the smallest AF -point as eye focusing on this situation is worse that a joke. 

Using my D850/500PF with the one AF-point I do not have any issues. Keep in mind that even my "lowly" 90D with 100-400II works correctly with the smallest AF-point. I needed the R5 with 400DOII f/4 combination though because where the chiffchaff goes to my plant there are strong shadows and the ISO most of the time is in the high 4 digits and I try to avoid a 5th digit!!!

There was a case where R5 eye focusing impressed me.
R5 could focus on a pigeons eye. That pigeon was on the opposite building and I was shooting from behind a plant in my balcony! That I would not be able to do with a DSLR. But this is a very rare case that does not interest me so much. Shooting a bird between leaves is a more common scenario which R5 - and only R5 - fails miserably. If they could improve the small point focusing capability that would change though.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2021)

I seem to be luckier with my R5. For example, on this very dull overcast afternoon, I took a 1 sec burst of a Great Tit singing. The eyeAF locked and even though the 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC on the R5 wandered because of the weight bearing down on my arms, as you can see from the full frames, I can make an animated gif of the plot, every frame of which is tack sharp.


----------



## tron (Feb 19, 2021)

Well, when R5 is good it is very good but when it's bad.....


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2021)

tron said:


> Well, when R5 is good it is very good but when it's bad.....
> View attachment 195888
> View attachment 195889


Your friend the chiffchaff! They haven’t got to us yet.


----------



## tron (Feb 19, 2021)

I have left food in two places in the specific tree (actually it is a plant that had became really big) but I have never seen it eating it. And I have left water nearby. Never mind. The food is there in case it is needed.


----------



## tron (Feb 19, 2021)

I want to like R5. In fact I just got RF85mm f/2 Macro and it is my 6th RF lens (excluding TC). It seems a nice little lens. And I will definitely get the 100-500 since I have already got the RF1.4X !!

I just do not feel confident to be to a birding place only with R5. When I am with car I can carry R5 as a second camera (system).

I would really like to have R5 when I was in Rome and Florence where I was shooting inside churches and museums. But it didn't exist back then.
Also I would like to use it when shooting with my 500mm the moon rising behind the Poseidon temple during Summer. 

Finally it could take nice astrophotos with my Sigma 14mm 1.8 (Although 5DIV has been quite nice with it).

So there are uses for R5. It is just birding that it does not seem 100% suitable for.


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 20, 2021)

tron said:


> I will be a little heretic here. I believe that there are cases where 1DxIII would make a better solution for birding. One case is - as mentioned in other places and Alan have mentioned too - when the bird target is in front some time R5 fails to focus and focus at the background (at least this is what it has done with 400II+2XIII so I guess with a smaller magnification it would behave even worse.
> 
> I tried to shoot a chiffchaff behind/among the leaves of a big plant and my R5 with 400DOII (no TC) failed MISERABLY. The result was a total blur. I was using the smallest AF -point as eye focusing on this situation is worse that a joke.
> 
> ...


I would find the 1DXIII fails in cases like this as well. I'd love to be photographing big birds but we don't have that many of them. They tend to be small finches or thrushes and move about trees quite alot. The 1DXIII is still quite hit and miss with this type of set up. It's much better when its against a clear background, it locks on quickly. Hopefully eventually a camera will be able to detect and focus on something by detecting what it is. It would be great if it could intelligently work out what in the scene the photographer might be tracking.
The main disadvantage for me in the IDXIII is the 20MP. Small birds need that higher MP. For sport the 20MP is not an issue (if there was any sport to photograph - hopefully it will restart). 
The R1 I'm sure will be a higher MP camera and its focusing ability might be superior. I'm holding out for a high MP R5 style camera but is probably a way off. I have a loupe for the IDXIII but unless in a hide its not very practical. Even at that its awkward. I don't know if it focuses any better in live view .


----------



## tron (Feb 21, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I would find the 1DXIII fails in cases like this as well. I'd love to be photographing big birds but we don't have that many of them. They tend to be small finches or thrushes and move about trees quite alot. The 1DXIII is still quite hit and miss with this type of set up. It's much better when its against a clear background, it locks on quickly. Hopefully eventually a camera will be able to detect and focus on something by detecting what it is. It would be great if it could intelligently work out what in the scene the photographer might be tracking.
> The main disadvantage for me in the IDXIII is the 20MP. Small birds need that higher MP. For sport the 20MP is not an issue (if there was any sport to photograph - hopefully it will restart).
> The R1 I'm sure will be a higher MP camera and its focusing ability might be superior. I'm holding out for a high MP R5 style camera but is probably a way off. I have a loupe for the IDXIII but unless in a hide its not very practical. Even at that its awkward. I don't know if it focuses any better in live view .


I read and accept your 1DxIII findings. You have it and I don't. In that case I do not have a 100% solution. For some R5 is the perfect camera but as I mentioned I do not believe that. Even the button placement (Menu, Info, Q, etc) is arranged differently than other Canon cameras! For other 5DsR + big whites could be another way (I have it and I like it. It is not fast and the buffer is small but it is surprising good). I also use D850/D500 with 500mm PF. If I had to take one combo I would take D850/500PF (with the TC1.4III). It has nice and fast focusing (without the TC) and the basic battery can be used for 2000 shots! It makes the grip with the big battery useless! With the TC focusing suffers but IQ does not!

Regarding R1 and any other successor they will have to improve Dual Pixel a lot (Maybe Quad pixel?) That small area AF sometimes is a joke in many situations which are easy for Canon's and Nikon's DSLR's one point AF.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 21, 2021)

Every opinion is worth considering. I suspect that the expectations of some are extremely high and others not nearly so and as a result we read criticism or praise not knowing if it's realistic. It's easy for me to imagine that my 1DX2 is essentially useless unless I reflect on what it has given me over the last few years rather than what I missed. What is clear, whether people love or criticize the R5, it's speed of focus is so much faster than Canon predecessors and for me that's where most of my failings lie. I do have concern about the issues just raised because I have almost exclusively been a single spot point shooter and that's where the 1DX2 has shone relative to my previous 6D. Many criticized the 6D buttons/layout but I never found them to be very problematic but have found the 1DX2 joystick to be clumsy slow.

Jack


----------

