# 1DX vs 5D3



## jaayres20 (Jul 28, 2012)

I am interested to hear from anyone who has used both cameras. I have two 5D3s and I am a wedding photographer. I love my cameras but I am always curious if there is something better that will help me do my job better. I am interested if the AF is just a little faster and better and I have also read that the sensor may be a little better. Anyone have any experience with the two cameras?


----------



## risc32 (Jul 28, 2012)

I haven't used a 1dx but from my exp with my 5dmk3 and older 1d bodies I imagine that what (que the haters) kenrockwell has just said is correct. 
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/5d-mkiii-vs-1dx.htm
If it's more detail that you are after, hopefully you will get it from the members here.


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2012)

I would also like to read the comments this post will receive.

One very popular reviewer seems to favor 3 or X for image quality...


----------



## Sh1n1ng Forc3 (Jul 28, 2012)

Well, I do own both and have been shooting with the 1DX for about 2 weeks now. The 1DX that I have is very fast when it comes to AF, but as with all cameras, it depends on the light, lens, AF mode and skill/technique. Assuming you have fast lenses (2.8 and faster) and know how/when to use the AF modes etc the 1DX will not disappoint. When compared with the 5D3 I would say the AF on the 1DX is faster and can be very accurate when used well (and can be very impressive when used in conjunction with its high speed 12fps). As for IQ they are really very similar. You will get a different noise pattern between the 2 (I actually prefer the noise pattern on the 5D3 but this is completely subjective). The 1DX does have a slightly better high ISO performance showing less noise. All in all the 1DX has been a pleasure to shoot with and has more options for customization (such as spot metering linked to AF point selected, 2 M.fn buttons, AE & FE adjustment etc). As I am not a wedding photographer I cannot say if you will appreciate these differences but I don't think the AF alone would be worth the upgrade as in my testing it is best taken advantage of in quick movement (sports, bif etc) but maybe it would be for you. Rent one and take it along to verify.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 28, 2012)

I'll have a lot, lot more tests tomorrow, but so far I haven't seen any difference in IQ at all, around ISO 100-400. I didn't crop either, so I have a lot more to examine. As can be expected, the color rendition is slightly different, as for my tests I'll just leave each cam in Portrait Mode (my favorite on the 1Ds 3). The tests I'll be doing will be among the 1D X, 1D Mark IV, and 5D Mark III. I think those are very appropriate comparisons regarding the magnitude of each camera.


----------



## canon816 (Jul 28, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I'll have a lot, lot more tests tomorrow, but so far I haven't seen any difference in IQ at all, around ISO 100-400. I didn't crop either, so I have a lot more to examine. As can be expected, the color rendition is slightly different, as for my tests I'll just leave each cam in Portrait Mode (my favorite on the 1Ds 3). The tests I'll be doing will be among the 1D X, 1D Mark IV, and 5D Mark III. I think those are very appropriate comparisons regarding the magnitude of each camera.



Looking forward to your test. If you don't mind sharing results please post on this thread or at least a link on this thread. Thanks!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 28, 2012)

What do you guys want to see? Just tell me and I'll spend the next few days doing it. I have the 1D X, 5D3, and 1D4. I can shoot whatever.


----------



## risc32 (Jul 28, 2012)

scantily clad ... sorry, i couldn't help myself. I don't have any special requests, thanks for doing this.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 28, 2012)

risc32 said:


> scantily clad ... sorry, i couldn't help myself. I don't have any special requests, thanks for doing this.



We can try that as long as it's legal and I'm not cashing in the cameras for bail money.


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> What do you guys want to see? Just tell me and I'll spend the next few days doing it. I have the 1D X, 5D3, and 1D4. I can shoot whatever.



Could you compare compare Servo focus?


----------



## M.ST (Jul 28, 2012)

I have the 1D X, the 5D Mark III and further bodies. 

1D X ist faster, AF is better and the picture quality is better in hight ISO shots.

The 5D Mark III has a smaller body and the C1 to C3 on the wheel. If I was a wedding Photographer I would prefer the 5D Mark III.

In the range ISO 50 to 200 my old 1Ds Mark III beats the 1D X and the 5D Mark III, but the 1Ds Mark III is much slower and not so good in high ISO shots.

I use the 1D X for sports, action and wildlife. For portraits and landscape I use the 1Ds Mark III, the 5D Mark III and the 5D Mark II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2012)

M.ST said:


> The 5D Mark III has ... C1 to C3 on the wheel.



The 1D X doesn't have a wheel, but it does have C1 to C3.


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2012)

M.ST said:


> I have the 1D X, the 5D Mark III and further bodies.
> 
> 1D X ist faster, AF is better and the picture quality is better in hight ISO shots.
> 
> ...



This is so interesting to me. So there is visible difference in quality if you shoot landscapes with Mark III?


----------



## canon816 (Jul 28, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> What do you guys want to see? Just tell me and I'll spend the next few days doing it. I have the 1D X, 5D3, and 1D4. I can shoot whatever.



I am most interested in High ISO comparison. Primarily ISO 6400 through 25800.

I currently have a 1DIV and a 5DII and I doubt that any features would get me exited enough to make the upgrade other then Image Quality at high ISO. I'm trying to decide whether to upgrade the 1DIV to a 1DX or rather upgrade the 5DII to a 5DIII. Or do nothing at all.

I primarily shoot wildlife... so if you are able to shoot a few high ISO shots with each body at a texture rich subject and post to compare at 100% that would be awesome! (Ideally right out of camera with no default or additional NR)

Thanks for asking and have fun working with your new tools...


----------



## NotABunny (Jul 28, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> What do you guys want to see? Just tell me and I'll spend the next few days doing it. I have the 1D X, 5D3, and 1D4. I can shoot whatever.



Low and normal light at ISO 12800, and auto-exposure of portraits in backlit situations (to see how much the 1Dx's scene detection matters).


----------



## Viggo (Jul 28, 2012)

Strange about the AF being so much closer together than I would have expected given the whole iTR and metering a stop lower and faster motorspin...

Dissapointing as I am trying to justify getting the X (currently owning the 5d3) I must say, I miss the 1-series... And AF and tracking being the main reason I would upgrade...


----------



## K-amps (Jul 28, 2012)

I read the KR comparison and find it interesting when he talks about how the ISO of the 5d3 is incorrectly calibrated, so when you set it to ISO 100, it really is shooting at 160-200, and so on. For marketing purposes it would help since now 12800 is very usable even if it is only 6400, and also explains why the 5d3 at similar (100-400) ISO's has more noise than the D800...


----------



## Wilmark (Jul 28, 2012)

ken Rockwell said:
"drenched consumer cameras like the 5D Mark II or Mark III, are all dead"
Dont agree with this!

The 1D series has better sealing but the MkIII and the 7D are not that backward either, Certainly not Dead!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 28, 2012)

Wilmark said:


> ken Rockwell said:
> "drenched consumer cameras like the 5D Mark II or Mark III, are all dead"
> Dont agree with this!
> 
> The 1D series has better sealing but the MkIII and the 7D are not that backward either, Certainly not Dead!



I'd agree on the 5d2, although it did survive a Burning Man just fine with all that fine dust & grit (sent it in for cleaning afterwards though). My 5d3? Based on it's feel in my hand I'd say with an appropriately weather sealed lens it'd probably last through a rain storm. Being dunked in water? I highly doubt it, although I wouldn't be surprised if the 1DX could survive brief immersion in extremely shallow water. Assuming the lens cooperated of course.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 28, 2012)

You can buy a single-use camera for underwater use for 10 bucks, please don't tell me the best reason we can come up with to get a DOUBLE priced 1d X over a 5d3 is the damn weathersealing???


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 28, 2012)

Viggo said:


> You can buy a single-use camera for underwater use for 10 bucks, please don't tell me the best reason we can come up with to get a DOUBLE priced 1d X over a 5d3 is the damn weathersealing???



Please compare that underwater camera to what the 1DX can do. No real comparison.

Leaving that aside, 2 different target groups. The single-use underwater cameras are only good down to a few meters, no interchangeable lens system, no super advanced controls, no real viewfinder. Oh, and probably use ISO 400-800 film, which they develop and give you a CD.

And no, the price difference is not purely weathersealing. Some of the cost, yes, but much of the rest is different sensors, more electronics/processors, additional AF & metering, built-in dual battery grip, etc, etc. Oh, and the shutter can handle more actuations and double(!) the frames per second. And take more frames until the buffer is full. There's a ton of small and large things between the 1DX and the 5d3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2012)

Viggo said:


> ...please don't tell me the best reason we can come up with to get a DOUBLE priced 1d X over a 5d3 is the damn weathersealing???



Please don't tell me the best reason we can come up with to get a FOURTEEN HUNDRED dollar higher priced 5DIII over a 5DII is better AF??? Please don't tell me the best reason we can come up with to get a DOUBLE priced 5DII over a 60D is a bigger sensor??? Follow that logic to the end and you'll be doing all your shooting with that $10 disposable camera.


----------



## wockawocka (Jul 28, 2012)

The only thing the 5D3 does better than the 1DX is the silent shutter.

As far as IQ goes it is a leap ahead. I'm sick of seeing performance based around ISO.
Quality of the files themselves, their clarity and their dynamic range is also a big factor.

The 1DX renders files like no other. It's absolutely superb.

I'm a wedding photographer who's shot 12+ weddings with the 5D3 and 5 with the 1DX.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > ...please don't tell me the best reason we can come up with to get a DOUBLE priced 1d X over a 5d3 is the damn weathersealing???
> ...



Well, that's taking it to a even farther extreme than I did ...

My point is, I know the spec lists, I know the 5d3. But from the OP and others I read around on using BOTH cameras it seems like half a stop better noise, which is pretty much expected at 4 mp less and "better built" is it...

But the 1d X is being said as to have WAY better tracking and AF accuracy and speed, but I'm just trying to see if that is Canon-talk, or if it really offers a much better AF and tracking than the 5d3, which in all honesty, could be better and it could be WAY worse like the 5d2. 

Misunderstand me the right way. I think the 5d3 is the most substantial upgrade from one model to the next Canon has EVER done, and it couldn't be any better at that price point.

MY point is, what does the 1d X offer in real life, that defends paying double? I've dropped my 5d3, been out in soaking weather drowning where my 50 L started to fog up inside and still the 5d3 didn't miss a beat. So build is very good.

If the AF/Tracking, in real life, doesn't offer anything better than the 5d3, it's half a stop better, heavy as crap (compared) 200 images more on a battery(used to be 2000 images more) no headphonejack, no better DR(?) I just can't see the point....

So of anyone using both cameras can show me a clear cut difference and situations where the 1d X kills the 5d3 for tracking and or IQ in 6400 iso light, I so want to see it, because there are a lot of features with a 1d I would really like back (used to own the 1d3 and 1d4), but not at any cost. Not when I see just how much better camera the 5d3 is over the 1d4.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2012)

Why is the Porsche 911 Turbo S better than the 911 Carrera? If you have to ask, maybe a Toyota Camra (pun intended) is the better choice for you? 

Here's what Bryan at TDP says:
_
*Canon EOS 1D X Feature Advantages Over the EOS 5D Mark III *
More advanced metering system (100k pixel, 252 zone RGB vs 63 zone iFCL)
EOS iTR AF (Intelligent Tracking and Recognition AF including facial recognition)
Frame rate is 2x faster (12 fps vs. 6 fps)
Higher frame burst rating (RAW: 38 vs. 18 rated / 54 vs. 33 tested)
AF point-linked spot metering and Multi-spot metering
Faster AF driven by more powerful battery pack (with select Canon L lenses)
EV 0-20 Metering range (vs. EV 1-20)
Higher native ISO settings available (51200 vs. 25600)
Higher expanded ISO settings available (204800 vs. 102400)
Less high ISO noise
Faster X-sync speed (1/250 vs. 1/200)
Dual DIGIC 5+ processors plus DIGIC 4 processor dedicated to AE functions
(5D III has a single DIGIC 5+ processor and a non-specified AF-dedicated processor)
Higher battery life rating (1,120 vs. 950 shots)
Higher shutter durability rating (400,000 vs. 150,000 cycles)
Higher viewfinder magnification (.76x vs .71x)
Shorter viewfinder blackout time
Viewfinder provides more nose relief from LCD (less nose spots on LCD)
Has a viewfinder shutter
Built-in Ethernet Port
More advanced self-cleaning sensor
Better Weather Sealing
Built in vertical grip
Accepts optional focus screens
7 LCD brightness levels (vs. 3)
More custom functions (31 vs. 13)
_


----------



## canon816 (Jul 29, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> The only thing the 5D3 does better than the 1DX is the silent shutter.
> 
> As far as IQ goes it is a leap ahead. I'm sick of seeing performance based around ISO.
> Quality of the files themselves, their clarity and their dynamic range is also a big factor.
> ...



So you have seen that the 1DX is far better then the 5DIII when it comes to Image Quality? If so that is certainly saying something as the 5DIII files are really nice.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 29, 2012)

K-amps said:


> I read the KR comparison and find it interesting when he talks about how the ISO of the 5d3 is incorrectly calibrated, so when you set it to ISO 100, it really is shooting at 160-200, and so on. For marketing purposes it would help since now 12800 is very usable even if it is only 6400, and also explains why the 5d3 at similar (100-400) ISO's has more noise than the D800...



that is backwards the 5D3 is more conservative than 5D2 for rating ISOs so when you shoot ISO3200 with both the 5D3 is really already doing what the 5D2 would call ISO4000


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dual DIGIC 5+ processors plus DIGIC 4 processor dedicated to AE functions
> (5D III has a single DIGIC 5+ processor and a non-specified AF-dedicated processor)



having dual digic itself is a disadvantage since it means no Magic Lantern

of course the things it allows, already mentioned, more fps are great


----------



## JR (Jul 29, 2012)

What about the dynamic range? Any thoughts on how the 1DX stackes against the 5D mkIII in that regards?


----------



## heheapa (Jul 29, 2012)

I missed the HDR function in 5D Mark III. Hope will see the feature in coming 1dx firmware release


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 29, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> What do you guys want to see? Just tell me and I'll spend the next few days doing it. I have the 1D X, 5D3, and 1D4. I can shoot whatever.



low light & AF PLEASEEEEE


----------



## Viggo (Jul 29, 2012)

Oh, I read it all what I can find about specs and know them by heart from.October last year, but I fail to see any proof the tracking is better, not just on paper...

The af and tracking is the main reason why I choose cameras, so I guess the 5d3 is the best choice...

And if we look at what USED to separate the 5d and 1d, I think it's very safe to say the 5d3 is by far the best Canon value for money...

And the difference between å 60d and å 5d is way bigger than the 5d3 and 1d x, so I don't get that point Neuro...


----------



## M.ST (Jul 29, 2012)

Hello sanj,

I prefer the old 1 Ds Mark III and the 5D Mark II for landscapes.

Yes, the 1D X has no wheel with C1 to C3. Thats what I wrote. With the wheel you can change very fast your settings. Changing the settings with a 1D xxx Body is much slower.


----------



## M.ST (Jul 29, 2012)

Reply to: I missed the HDR function in 5D Mark III.

The 5D Mark III HAVE one of the best in-camera-HDR-functions.

But I prefer the new bracketing with 7 shots and the preproduction with Photoshop CS6 Extended or the latest Photomatix version.


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 29, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> What do you guys want to see? Just tell me and I'll spend the next few days doing it. I have the 1D X, 5D3, and 1D4. I can shoot whatever.


Color rendition difference between 1Dx and 1Ds please


----------



## clicstudio (Jul 29, 2012)

jaayres20 said:


> I am interested to hear from anyone who has used both cameras. I have two 5D3s and I am a wedding photographer. I love my cameras but I am always curious if there is something better that will help me do my job better. I am interested if the AF is just a little faster and better and I have also read that the sensor may be a little better. Anyone have any experience with the two cameras?


The focusing on the 1DX is faster and sharper. Only
By a 15% or so. Nothing major but noticeable. 
I tested both with the same lightning setup and the same 24-70
f2.8L lens. 
Also, listening to the machine gun-like sound of 12fps is
Amazing. Even the sound of the shutter is clean and sturdy. The old 5D II sounded horrible. I
Love the sound of the 1D X
The best advantage of the 1D X is the ergonomics and feel. Even with the grip, the 5D doesn't feel as sturdy and comfortable, but with the extra 4MP and $3000 price
Difference, the 5D is the clear choice.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 29, 2012)

clicstudio said:


> jaayres20 said:
> 
> 
> > I am interested to hear from anyone who has used both cameras. I have two 5D3s and I am a wedding photographer. I love my cameras but I am always curious if there is something better that will help me do my job better. I am interested if the AF is just a little faster and better and I have also read that the sensor may be a little better. Anyone have any experience with the two cameras?
> ...



Thanks, I seems that way to me also.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 29, 2012)

All right, I'm still out shooting, but so far my general observation is if you have the 1D Mark IV, the clear upgrade is the 1D X. If you already have a 5D Mark III, you would not substitute the 1D X for the 5D Mark III. So far I'm not seeing anything difference in regards to IQ. I did a really far crop on one photo out in a field, and the depth of detail stops shorter in the 1D X photo, likely due to the less 4 mp than the 5D Mark III. Well, now this is interesting. Like Brian mentioned, the coloring looks different because I'm thinking the 1D X and 1D4 for that matter, you can even throw in the 1Ds3, seem to be metering more accurately and the colors look a bit more accurate. Sometimes the auto ISO on the 5D3 is slightly off, even though it says the exposure is correct, whereas the 1D X, 1D4, and 1Ds3, are never wrong. Photos to come.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 29, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> All right, I'm still out shooting, but so far my general observation is if you have the 1D Mark IV, the clear upgrade is the 1D X. If you already have a 5D Mark III, you would not substitute the 1D X for the 5D Mark III. So far I'm not seeing anything difference in regards to IQ. I did a really far crop on one photo out in a field, and the depth of detail stops shorter in the 1D X photo, likely due to the less 4 mp than the 5D Mark III. Well, now this is interesting. Like Brian mentioned, the coloring looks different because I'm thinking the 1D X and 1D4 for that matter, you can even throw in the 1Ds3, seem to be metering more accurately and the colors look a bit more accurate. Sometimes the auto ISO on the 5D3 is slightly off, even though it says the exposure is correct, whereas the 1D X, 1D4, and 1Ds3, are never wrong. Photos to come.



Awesome, thanks for going out of your way to provide your experience, means a great deal!

The metering on my 5d makes me miss the 1-series option to adjust 0 ev on the scale... my 5d3 is usually off by at least one full stop to my liking, always +1 or up to 3 stops up in backlight situations...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 29, 2012)

Viggo said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > All right, I'm still out shooting, but so far my general observation is if you have the 1D Mark IV, the clear upgrade is the 1D X. If you already have a 5D Mark III, you would not substitute the 1D X for the 5D Mark III. So far I'm not seeing anything difference in regards to IQ. I did a really far crop on one photo out in a field, and the depth of detail stops shorter in the 1D X photo, likely due to the less 4 mp than the 5D Mark III. Well, now this is interesting. Like Brian mentioned, the coloring looks different because I'm thinking the 1D X and 1D4 for that matter, you can even throw in the 1Ds3, seem to be metering more accurately and the colors look a bit more accurate. Sometimes the auto ISO on the 5D3 is slightly off, even though it says the exposure is correct, whereas the 1D X, 1D4, and 1Ds3, are never wrong. Photos to come.
> ...



Yep. Same thing I noticed. The 5D3 pictures are SHARPER than the 1D4, it's just I have to adjust exposure and color in post. The 1D Mark IV pictures I can literally not even touch the exposure bar and I noticed this with the 1Ds3 and 1DX. That is an excellent point to note! I'm headed out now to do some landscape shots in the afternoon/evening sun, some telephoto shots on distance objects, and then some high ISO night shots indoors. I would like to do a bit more low ISO work, but that may take a day or two to get in those situations. I have a ton of ISO 400 work from yesterday, but that's not really what I wanted; I was hoping for 50-100.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 29, 2012)

I am waiting patiently for my 1DX

Then I will do my own tests:

- I shoot in good light, so most of my photos are at iso 400 or less
- if natural light isn't good enough then out come the flashes

So far for my style of shooting:

5D classic and 1Ds2 render differently than the 7D - IMO much nicer
1Ds3 renders better than the 1D4 and gives better IQ
1Ds3 and 1Ds2 are much harder to separate, apart from the 16 and 21mps

1 Series have the AF point metering
1 Series have better (more accurate) AF than the equivalent technology others

Hence 1 Series get more keepers from a series

Below is a picture of Bayeux Cathedral (France) taken on a walkabout with my 1DS3


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 29, 2012)

I'm posting a quick, unedited 3 shots of landscapes, with 16-35L II lens, with the 1D X, 5D3, and 1D 4. The exposures were similar, at f/22, 1/125s, ISO 200 focusing distance the same. Again, these are RAW to JPEG immediately out of camera.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 29, 2012)

Next is the 5D3.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 29, 2012)

Finally 1D4.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 29, 2012)

When I lined them up on my computer, the 1D X shot had much finer detail in the grasses in the lower half of the photos. All of them were shot in Portrait Mode.

My next series of shots are of a church, with a lot of details and shadows.


----------



## risc32 (Jul 30, 2012)

I really appreciate what your doing here, but unless i'm mistaken and i could very well be, isn't f22 well into the effects of diffraction? isn't the 1dx's diffraction limiting aperture a bit smaller than the others in this test? Does that give it a bit of an advantage? Personally i doubt there is much in it in terms of IQ, but under a scope the 5dmk3 should squeak out a win. But if the camera isn't focused, isn't even there due to the conditions, or just plain isn't fast enough to get the shot everything else is meaningless, and on that accord i'm sure the 1dx get's it done. I am very surprised to read how the 1dx's focusing is either the same, or something on the order of 15% faster. That's weird as my 1dmk2 is like an alcohol dragster compared to my 5dmk3. Oh it misses from time to time, but while the 5dmk3 is (relatively) slowly changing the focus to the correct setting, the 1dmk2 just jumps right there. like it didn't adjust, it just went directly to the correct focus position. bang! Then again it's lost in low light while my 5d and 5dmk3 are much better. Thanks again for your efforts here, i bet many eyes are on this thread.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 30, 2012)

f/22 doesn't matter here. The cameras are focused at the same distance, about 5ft. I wanted a very deep DOF where f/22 gives the best without (me) noticing diffraction and yes f/11 and f/22 are different at a focusing distance of 5ft. I was not focused at infinity. I was not looking for a speed comparison in this test, I was looking at what camera might give me the best color rendition on a landscape shot out of camera with no processing. The 1D X won. I post-processed each the same and the 1D X looks better, and there is more detail in the grass. It also metered differently than the 5D3 and 1D4. This goes for the RAW and processed TIF and/or JPEG. So, at f/22, shutter 1/125s, ISO 200, focused at 5ft landscape shot, the 1D X looks better to me. Next will be an f/8 shot of a church, in enough light. Then, indoor shots at high ISO. And finally some sports/action shots. Obviously in sports/action, I cannot replicate images because they are changing, so I'll probably have to shoot a whole game and get an average of what looks best.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 30, 2012)

How's the wakeup time compared to the 5d3? I'm still very annoyed and puzzled the 5d needs a week to wake up...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 30, 2012)

Viggo said:


> How's the wakeup time compared to the 5d3? I'm still very annoyed and puzzled the 5d needs a week to wake up...



Super fast. I haven't found anything I didn't like yet with this camera. You turn it on, you start shooting.


----------



## Chris Burch (Jul 30, 2012)

So far I only have one legit shoot under my belt with the 1DX hanging from one shoulder and the 5D3 from the other. I shot a choir concert in a poorly lit church, so I got to work out the high ISO. I just started editing the photos but have a few observations so far. 

- Image quality seems to be equal or so close that it doesn't matter to me. 

- Now that I can limit the range on both cameras, I shot on auto ISO (only done that a couple of times). I limited the 1DX to 25,600 and the 5D3 to 12,800 based on some other reviews I have read. All of the shots seem to be very usable. When I am done editing, I'll have a little better idea, but I never went beyond 4,000 on my 5D2, so this is interesting new territory.

- AF performance seemed to be equal. I occasionally switched to AI Servo because there were some dancers and had a few misses on the 1DX -- I rarely use AI-Servo so it might be able to my technique to fault.

- Shutter speed/feel/response...I cranked up the low-speed continuous shoot to 6/sec on the 1DX (it's programmable) and did a lot of multiple-shot sequences and really found it to be responsive. On the 5D3 I only use the silent mode, and that's about 3/sec so it's automatically slower and it's sort of apples and oranges. I suspect the full-speed 5D3 isn't so different that the low speed 1DX. I will say that the lack of a real or even usable silent option on the 1DX is annoying the heck out of me. For weddings or quite music concerts or anything quite for that matter the silent mode is a godsend.

- Exposure...this one is the biggest difference from my viewpoint. The 1DX nailed the exposure in almost every shot. I'm very curious to see how it handles flash shooting, but the 5D3 was way off on a lot of exposures while I was shooting. If you don't shoot very often in auto modes, this won't be a factor though. Even with the noisy shutter, I ended up using my 1DX almost 90% of the time on the shoot because of the exposure accuracy. It was very mixed lighting, so having it accurate without compensation was very nice.

If you already have 2 5D3's I would advise you to stick with what you have and you shouldn't think twice about it. The value of having 2 of the same cameras to shoot with is huge, so upgrading both would be an extra $6K investment for not a whole lot extra. If you were shooting sports it's a no-brainer to make the leap, but the 5D3 is a superb wedding camera and that silent mode is major bonus.

I have a tennis tournament to shoot in Sept, so maybe that will settle me on the 1DX. By then, I'll probably upgrade my 70-200 to the new version as well, so it should be a dream combo. At 12 frames/sec I should be able to catch some stunning moments of play.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

Well well well. In my quest for proper testing among the 3 various cameras, I have had to consider a 4th, the 1Ds Mark III and I'll share why. A problem was found with the 5D Mark III. It could be a serious problem, and I have confirmation from several other photographers. Daytime, ISO 50-400, both the 5D3 and 1Ds3 are comparable. In fact, after post processing, yes the 5D3 looks just a little better. Now go shoot with the 5D3 under a tree in the shade, or indoors in tungsten and fluorescent lighting, and now you have green hues to the shadows and/or areas around highlights. I have some photos I'm going to share. This is a prominent problem if you examine my photos and another photographer's photos. I have many of them from both bodies I own. 

Now, take the 1DX. You don't see this, nor do you in the 1D4 or 1Ds3. Seems a slight color accuracy problem with the 5D Mark III. It is also very difficult to get rid of these hues in post processing as I thought it was simply the white balance being slightly off. It isn't. You cannot adjust color temperature to get rid of the problem. The 1D bodies are not showing this effect. 

I'll have some photos I'd like you to look at and evaluate. What this may mean is that the 5D Mark III is a much, much better daylight camera despite the high ISO capabilities than a low-light camera regarding color accuracy. Time will tell.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 2, 2012)

Chris Burch said:


> - Exposure...this one is the biggest difference from my viewpoint. The 1DX nailed the exposure in almost every shot. I'm very curious to see how it handles flash shooting, but the 5D3 was way off on a lot of exposures while I was shooting. If you don't shoot very often in auto modes, this won't be a factor though. Even with the noisy shutter, I ended up using my 1DX almost 90% of the time on the shoot because of the exposure accuracy. It was very mixed lighting, so having it accurate without compensation was very nice.



Could this be as much from the AF point metering as from the improved metering?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

Brian, I think there is a real problem here. I just got home and am going to take all 3 cameras downstairs and do some fluorescent lighting shooting. Be back shortly 8)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

Ok, I went down and did the FIRST test for EXPOSURE ONLY. I set up the same conditions, 105mm, f/8, 1/100s. The 5D3 read the correct exposure at ISO 6400. The 1DX gave the correct exposure at ISO 5000. I shot with the camera set to Fluorescent WB.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

I then purposefully overexposed to +2 EC. Notice the difference between what the 5D3 says and what the 1DX says:


----------



## drjlo (Aug 2, 2012)

"Notice the difference between what the 5D3 says and what the 1DX says:"

Hmm, "says" what, where?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

drjlo said:


> "Notice the difference between what the 5D3 says and what the 1DX says:"
> 
> Hmm, "says" what, where?



Do you have something to contribute? Or are you just bored and lonely?


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 2, 2012)

So at normal metering there is little difference between the 5DIII at iso6400 and the 1DX at iso5000 - presumably the iso differences are just calibration/efficiency

However pushing them both the same then the 1DX image doesn't fall apart like the 5DIII

Is that your conclusion?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

Let me first add these 1Ds3 and 1D4 photos. I couldn't push the 1Ds3 much, due to max ISO value, but I could the 1D4, which again, did not fall apart.

The 1DX and 1D4 don't fall apart and clearly the 5D3 does. Isn't that what it looks like?


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 2, 2012)

That is very interesting. 

The D800 fans say how much more they can push the shadows - perhaps we are seeing that against the 5DIII that is true - but against the 1DX that may not be true or not so obvious in the field. +2 is as much as I would expect.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> That is very interesting.
> 
> The D800 fans say how much more they can push the shadows - perhaps we are seeing that against the 5DIII that is true - but against the 1DX that may not be true or not so obvious in the field. +2 is as much as I would expect.



What's interesting too, is that I can "fix" the 1DX image very easily, whereas the 5D3 I cannot do so that easily. Notice how slightly "darker" the 1D bodies expose vs. the 5D3, which leads me to believe at least better metering accuracy. Whether this means much in the field I doubt, especially for outdoor shots.


----------



## drjlo (Aug 2, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > "Notice the difference between what the 5D3 says and what the 1DX says:"
> ...



Jeez, there's no need to take my head off for asking for clarification for what you were trying to say. You wrote "what 5D3 says and what the 1DX says," so I thought your post or photo somehow/somewhere had a EXIF info or some other info tags I wasn't finding that "says" some data info. 

If you meant for us to just look at the photo itself and interpret the IQ subjectively, not looking for some literal numeric info that "says" something in numbers, then that's fine.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

Sorry, I've been dealing with real smartass posts on another forum. My apologies, really. 

Again, sorry, I'll provide the information you ask:

For the overexposure, it was very interesting. I set both cameras to auto ISO, f/8, 1/30s, and the 5D3 read 10,000 for a +2EC whereas the 1DX read ISO 6400 for the +2EC. This is very, very fascinating to me. Do you know what it means? I'm not sure.

Why does ISO 6400 on the 1DX read +2EC but it takes ISO 10,000 on the 5D3 to read +2EC?


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 2, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Sorry, I've been dealing with real smartass posts on another forum. My apologies, really.
> 
> Again, sorry, I'll provide the information you ask:
> 
> ...


Do the shots expose the same? Probably just the better metering on the 1dx


----------



## drjlo (Aug 2, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I'll have some photos I'd like you to look at and evaluate. What this may mean is that the 5D Mark III is a much, much better daylight camera despite the high ISO capabilities than a low-light camera regarding color accuracy. Time will tell.



My issue lately with 5DIII has been unpredictable auto white balance under low light, mixed flourescent/tungsten settings. So many reviews have said the 5DIII auto WB is quite improved, i.e. compared to Nikon D800 auto WB, etc, but I often get shockingly off colors and saturation in auto WB. For example, below shot:




DZ3C5505C by drjlo1, on Flickr

Post-Processed.




DZ3C5505B by drjlo1, on Flickr


----------



## canon816 (Aug 2, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Ok, I went down and did the FIRST test for EXPOSURE ONLY. I set up the same conditions, 105mm, f/8, 1/100s. The 5D3 read the correct exposure at ISO 6400. The 1DX gave the correct exposure at ISO 5000. I shot with the camera set to Fluorescent WB.



If I could point out... different camera bodies will register different exposure readings. Not just from one body to the next, but there is also a small amount of variance between camera bodies of the same model.

I have a 1DIV, and a buddy of mine has two 1DIV's. Line all three up with the same lens at the same focal length and aperture.... and there are three different exposure readings. Between the three bodies there is a variance of over half a stop. I also noticed this when I used to shoot with 7D's... I'm not sure that canon has done anything fishy here but rather there is a certain amount of tolerance variability with the hardware itself. 

I'm not a camera tech guy... just noticing what happens in the field.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

You're right. Except the photos look different. They are lighted differently, when they all said exposure was the same, the 5D3 registered 10,000 vs. 6400 and lo and behold, it was brighter. I don't know why, but it appears as though the 1D bodies are metering more accurately. I'm not sure if Canon is putting some technology in the 1D bodies that they are NOT putting in the 5D bodies, or what. You're right though, 6400 vs. 10,000 is not a full stop. I'm just pointing out that there is a difference.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

drjlo,

That's EXACTLY what I was talking about. Perfect example. I'll try to do similar shots with both cameras this weekend.


----------



## canon816 (Aug 2, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> You're right. Except the photos look different. They are lighted differently, when they all said exposure was the same, the 5D3 registered 10,000 vs. 6400 and lo and behold, it was brighter. I don't know why, but it appears as though the 1D bodies are metering more accurately. I'm not sure if Canon is putting some technology in the 1D bodies that they are NOT putting in the 5D bodies, or what. You're right though, 6400 vs. 10,000 is not a full stop. I'm just pointing out that there is a difference.



Just a quick followup question: Is it that the 1D bodies are metering more accurately or just differently? After all they are just tools for us to use. If you are able to nail the exposure by over-riding the exposure while in AV mode or in manual when you understand the nuances of your particular body.... does it really matter?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

canon816 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > You're right. Except the photos look different. They are lighted differently, when they all said exposure was the same, the 5D3 registered 10,000 vs. 6400 and lo and behold, it was brighter. I don't know why, but it appears as though the 1D bodies are metering more accurately. I'm not sure if Canon is putting some technology in the 1D bodies that they are NOT putting in the 5D bodies, or what. You're right though, 6400 vs. 10,000 is not a full stop. I'm just pointing out that there is a difference.
> ...



No, it doesn't matter at all. You just set the 5D3, for instance, to expose at -2/3? Something like that. I've had to do this with the 7D. The only thing I saw was that I was able to push the shadows on the 1DX shot, but that's not conclusive because that was just one shot in a controlled environment. But no, it's just a differing of metering. Why it does what it does is beyond the scope of what I'm doing.


----------



## Chris Burch (Aug 2, 2012)

canon816 said:


> Just a quick followup question: Is it that the 1D bodies are metering more accurately or just differently? After all they are just tools for us to use. If you are able to nail the exposure by over-riding the exposure while in AV mode or in manual when you understand the nuances of your particular body.... does it really matter?



The 1DX uses the focus point to meter, which the 5D3 does not (so I'm told). After the last shoot I did with both cameras, I can with certainly say the 1DX meters much more accurately on the subject than the 5D3 does. The 5D3 was getting thrown off by bright backgrounds or lights on the out edges of the frame, whereas the 1DX was pretty much spot-on for the actual subject in the photos.

If you're trying to compare the exposures of one camera to the other, these examples aren't all that useful because it seems automated setting are in use. However, from what I have seen on other reviews, with everything set to manual, the 5D3 is about 1/3 stop brighter than the exact same exposure settings on the 1DX. Check out the review someone posted for nighttime photography. I have heard that attributed to sensor programming, but I think that was just an educated guess.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

Chris Burch said:


> canon816 said:
> 
> 
> > Just a quick followup question: Is it that the 1D bodies are metering more accurately or just differently? After all they are just tools for us to use. If you are able to nail the exposure by over-riding the exposure while in AV mode or in manual when you understand the nuances of your particular body.... does it really matter?
> ...



No. Everything was set to manual. And I used center AF point for all shots. Where are you getting that anything was automatic? Nothing was automatic. And metering center-weighted average is the SAME on all cameras. How can you center-weight average through any other area but the CENTER? Spot metering yes, but all the others no. Do you know what I'm saying? How is this not useful?


----------



## Chris Burch (Aug 2, 2012)

If everything is set to manual, then the camera isn't metering anything. The only time metering would come into play is when you're in an AV, TV, or auto ISO mode and the camera is deciding what settings to choose. If everything is on manual, then you are doing the metering not the camera. Am I missing something? 

If you do want to test how the cameras each meter (and that is a valid question) you need to put them both in the same auto mode and shoot with identical focus points. When you do that you'll see the 5D3 and 1DX behave quite differently, specifically because of the focal point-weighted metering on the 1DX.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

Chris Burch said:


> If everything is set to manual, then the camera isn't metering anything. The only time metering would come into play is when you're in an AV, TV, or auto ISO mode and the camera is deciding what settings to choose. If everything is on manual, then you are doing the metering not the camera. Am I missing something?
> 
> If you do want to test how the cameras each meter (and that is a valid question) you need to put them both in the same auto mode and shoot with identical focus points. When you do that you'll see the 5D3 and 1DX behave quite differently, specifically because of the focal point-weighted metering on the 1DX.



I'm lost. The camera meters out of the same point on both cameras. The 1DX only meters out of a focus point on spot metering. I didn't use spot metering, I used center weighted average. Second point I'm lost on, is that when the camera tells me it's properly exposed (the meter on the right hand side on 1DX and bottom on 5D3) the brightness is different on each camera. 0 EV on 1DX is different than 0 EV on 5D Mark III. This is a very simple test. You can shoot in auto ISO at 1/100, f/8, and get ISO 6400 on the 5D3 and ISO 5000 on the 1DX. That is very similar. However, upon inspection of the photos, the exposure is brighter on the 5D3. Well of course, it's ISO is higher. The point is that it gave correct exposure at a brighter image than the 1DX did. Again, a very simple thing. 

And I don't know why people can't understand that AF-point metering is for spot metering. CWA comes out of the CENTER. It doesn't matter which camera you are using. Besides, why is it so hard to understand that I used the center AF point anyways in all of my shots?

I cannot explain this again, so I'm sorry if I'm not being clear.


----------



## Chris Burch (Aug 2, 2012)

So you're using auto ISO -- that's what I wasn't clear on since that means everything wasn't set to manual. As I said earlier, it already been demonstrated that the 5D3 produces a brighter image with the exact same settings at the 1DX. If you set everything to manual (including ISO) with the exact same settings, the resulting image will be brighter on the 5D3 than the 1DX.

The real-world application of this is that with a fixed shutter and aperture, you can shoot a properly exposed image with a 1DX and the same properly exposed image on the 5D3 will have a lower ISO. So when it comes to comparing high ISO image quality, it's not a valid comparison to look at the same ISO side by side. In real-world shooting you would need to compare a 6400 1DX image with a 5000 5D3 image. This I believe is exactly what you showed in your testing. Given that balance, the 1DX may not have any edge in high ISO over the 1DX. I've heard someone propose Canon did this on purpose to give the 1DX an apparent edge in high ISO.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

Chris Burch said:


> So you're using auto ISO -- that's what I wasn't clear on since that means everything wasn't set to manual. As I said earlier, it already been demonstrated that the 5D3 produces a brighter image with the exact same settings at the 1DX. If you set everything to manual (including ISO) with the exact same settings, the resulting image will be brighter on the 5D3 than the 1DX.
> 
> The real-world application of this is that with a fixed shutter and aperture, you can shoot a properly exposed image with a 1DX and the same properly exposed image on the 5D3 will have a lower ISO. So when it comes to comparing high ISO image quality, it's not a valid comparison to look at the same ISO side by side. In real-world shooting you would need to compare a 6400 1DX image with a 5000 5D3 image. This I believe is exactly what you showed in your testing. Given that balance, the 1DX may not have any edge in high ISO over the 1DX. I've heard someone propose Canon did this on purpose to give the 1DX an apparent edge in high ISO.



Ok Chris, I understand you now. Got it. I agree, probably no real ISO advantage.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

I think then we can eliminate high ISO comparisons. They don't seem to be relevant. I think we should look at underexposure/overexposure and shadow detail recovery. Also low ISO color rendition.


----------



## nightbreath (Aug 2, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> ... Also low ISO color rendition.



I looked closer to the samples you posted and saw slight difference in color tones. I'm not sure if it was affected by ISO difference or camera sensor color rendition, so I wouldn't comment here. Just look at the 5D Mark III image that has some slight purple / green color tints comparing to the 1D X image.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

I am and have been convinced that you are on to something here. Let me get back with you this afternoon with some test shots of real things. I am going to do a portrait shot with 135 f/2L lens this evening. The perfect test shot will be in tungsten lighting. Stay tuned. Do you want the RAW or TIF files? Let me know, I have your email addy.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

Did some on purpose bad lighting shots this evening. In this case, I took each camera with the same settings, only I shot in auto ISO for all shots. I did each lighting scenario with CWA metering and spot metering. If a highlight was blown out, I could NOT get the 1DX to focus properly. One shot I must have done 10 times and it's still blurry, whereas the 5D3 just locked on and I shot. Here's the first four:


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

Next:


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

The next series was with another person, with the sun directly to the left of the scene, blasting in.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

Next two:


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

I then traveled inside, much to everyone's chagrin. Please note I shot the White Balance WRONG. I left it in Cloudy just to see if there were any strange colors that could not be fixed in post processing. Again, we did 1DX vs. 5D3 with both CWA and spot metering for each scene.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

Next two:


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

Finally, TERRIBLE LIGHTING shot on purpose, with very little light, with person sitting in recliner. Same 4 photo/situation sequence.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

Last two for tonight:


----------



## canon816 (Aug 3, 2012)

Its tough to draw any conclusions looking at these comparisons as they are low res images. To me it almost looks like the 5DIII does a better job rendering detail in shadowed areas.

What conclusions do you draw from these comparisons? Both while using the cameras in the field, and then looking at them on your monitor under high res?

Thanks for doing this...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

I was merely looking at exposures. I can't comment on detail. You'll have to look at RAW images for that. I cannot post big enough files on here to do anything further meaningful. I'm going to post process them right now and post one from each set, around 3MB.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

Here are two photos identically shot and identically post processed:

High res versions:


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

Second photo:


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

So finally, I took the worst lighting, the recliner shot, and post processed each exactly the same way again.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

1DX photo post processed:


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

Well the white balance was still wrong, so I changed from fluorescent to tungsten, which seemed to be a better match. Both still had a green tint to it some places. Also, I had to turn NR up to 80% to get rid of background noise in the shadows. However, that degraded the 5D3 image more than the 1DX. However, it looks like the 5D3 got the colors correct.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

1DX shot:


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

In these harsh conditions, both camera's photos are equally awful and I don't see any enhanced performance of one or the other. At least with minimal processing I can't. I don't think the determing factor for any sane person is going to be high ISO or IQ differences, because they just don't exist. Speed, shutter durability, AF-point linked spot metering = 1DX. High MP, high ISO, price = 5D Mark III.

I just am not going to find anything. I mean, we can argue that the shadows are cleaner on the 1DX or we can pull more detail out of the 5D3's shadows, etc., but it's not significant enough. The last test will have to be low ISO's, where we saw more green hueing in the shadow areas when people, on a sunny day, were standing in the shade, on the 5D Mark III. I want to see if the 1DX does this or not.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 3, 2012)

@bdunbar79 - you are doing a good job there - thanks for putting the significant amount of time in for this testing.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

Thanks. My last test will not push either camera. I will take both to the car show this weekend and we can just casually examine each photo and maybe reach a conclusion or not. Pushing the cameras is hard to do and it's doubly hard to see any differences in performance with two very high performers anyways. 

It is kind of frustrating because if you remember when the 1Ds Mark III was new you COULD push each camera and see a huge difference as the 1Ds3 just outperformed everything at the time. Oh well, I think each are great and seem to have their places for use.

I promised you low ISO so I'll do some car show photos but I also want to test the green hue/shadow issue I've noticed on the 5D Mark III in the shade at high sun.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 3, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Thanks. My last test will not push either camera. I will take both to the car show this weekend and we can just casually examine each photo and maybe reach a conclusion or not. Pushing the cameras is hard to do and it's doubly hard to see any differences in performance with two very high performers anyways.
> 
> It is kind of frustrating because if you remember when the 1Ds Mark III was new you COULD push each camera and see a huge difference as the 1Ds3 just outperformed everything at the time. Oh well, I think each are great and seem to have their places for use.
> 
> I promised you low ISO so I'll do some car show photos but I also want to test the green hue/shadow issue I've noticed on the 5D Mark III in the shade at high sun.



Looks like I am going to do some testing of the TSE24 on a 1D4 and 1Ds3, perhaps I will go to the Olympic site just to prove what a friendly place it is


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

Here's one thing I can say. If you shoot the WB incorrectly in fluorescent or tungsten temps, you can't correct them in post 100%. If the camera shoots at those temps to begin with, you can. Interesting. It's probably Camera RAW though and not the camera itself, I'm guessing. What else was interesting, is that when I shot in Cloudy and processed the 5D3 image to Tungsten, it corrected almost there. The 1DX didn't come close as it was rather green tinted. This is just interesting playing with these RAW files.

Highlights still can blow in the 1DX images, but not as easily as in the 5D Mark III. And yeah, it seems the shadows look better from the 5D3 vs. the 1DX, although I suppose that could be from cropping and having less MP's. Tomorrow I won't crop one of them and examine this.


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 3, 2012)

I've the 1DX and 5D3 and within the ISO ranges of 400-51200 the 1DX smacks the 5D3 with a big wet comedy fish.

And those are the real ranges to test. I'm fed up seeing the 'here's the picture I took with both, what do you think' posts.

I've shot 5 weddings, some 8000 frames in total with the 1DX, almost the same number as the 5D3 and there is so much more than iso range that's an improvement. The Auto White Balance for one is superb. No real white balance corrections to do in post.

The images have miles more clarity to them too, despite losing 4 mp I can retrieve detail I could only dream of with the 5D3, the hair on peoples heads and pollen on flowers being good examples.

*ISO1600* - F5 - 1/160


----------



## canon816 (Aug 3, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Here's one thing I can say. If you shoot the WB incorrectly in fluorescent or tungsten temps, you can't correct them in post 100%. If the camera shoots at those temps to begin with, you can.



When you shoot in RAW it does not matter what WB setting you shoot in. This is simply a preset that communicates to present the JPG rendition or is communicated to editing software to get you close to true neutral grey. 

If you shoot in RAW the information in the data file is the same regardless of WB setting. Much like the NR settings, sharpness settings and picture styles don't matter. That's the point of RAW.... you have it all there to work with....


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> I've the 1DX and 5D3 and within the ISO ranges of 400-51200 the 1DX smacks the 5D3 with a big wet comedy fish.
> 
> And those are the real ranges to test. I'm fed up seeing the 'here's the picture I took with both, what do you think' posts.
> 
> ...



I'm tired of reading "1D-body syndrome" claims whereby the 1DX just destroys the 5D3. I have seen absolutely NO image ever so far, where this is true, including yours. Look at Bryan Carnathan's review even. He says the same thing. Can you show us please? We know you think the 1DX is the greatest thing ever, but why? Can someone please put two photos together to show this? I cannot. I've pushed each camera to their limits and I can see no IQ advantage at all. It may be way better than the 5D3, but can someone show us?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> It may be way better than the 5D3...



Oh, there's no question. The 1D X is way better than the 5DIII... Flash back a few years to how the 1DsIII had 'better color rendition' and 'better low ISO performance' and 'whatever' compared to the 5DII, despite the 5DII having a better sensor (according to Canon's white paper on the 5DII/50D). The theme is the same - there are lots of features that make the 1D X better, but if your main criterion is IQ, you'll save a lot of $/£/€ by getting a 5DIII.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > It may be way better than the 5D3...
> ...



Ok. I agree with this. If IQ is similar, then the 1DX is better overall, over all aspects. I also agree with the finer detail comment by wocka, I saw this myself in a few landscape shots. I think the less 4mp is probably not an issue. Only difference with the 1Ds3 is that camera had 21mp. Perhaps not an issue. Thanks. I still would like to a do a macro shot of a flower with both and see the detail comparison.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 3, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > I've the 1DX and 5D3 and within the ISO ranges of 400-51200 the 1DX smacks the 5D3 with a big wet comedy fish.
> ...



bdunbar79,
Thank you so MUCH for comparing two great cameras.

Dylan


----------



## nightbreath (Aug 3, 2012)

canon816 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's one thing I can say. If you shoot the WB incorrectly in fluorescent or tungsten temps, you can't correct them in post 100%. If the camera shoots at those temps to begin with, you can.
> ...



This is not true  Even if you shoot RAW it is being generated depending on settings in your camera. For example, make 3 high ISO shots with different noise reduction settings (no / normal / high) and you'll see difference in RAW (I did this test on 7D, not sure if all cameras behave the same).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> This is not true  Even if you shoot RAW it is being generated depending on settings in your camera. For example, make 3 high ISO shots with different noise reduction settings (no / normal / high) and you'll see difference in RAW (I did this test on 7D, not sure if all cameras behave the same).



Something fishy going on there. The only in-camera NR setting that affects the RAW file is the long exposure NR (because that subtracts a dark frame from the image). White balance, high ISO NR, picture style, ALO, etc., have no effect on the RAW image, although they do put flags in the metadata that alter the settings preselected when you open the image in DPP and many other converters.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> canon816 said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Thank you! This is what I observed too. I shot Cloudy for both, and obviously got the wrong color. Ok. I set to Tungsten in Camera RAW, 1dx was green, 5d3 wasn't. Next, I shoot in Tungsten WB in camera, 1Dx is correct, 5D3 looks green. Go figure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Thank you! This is what I observed too. I shot Cloudy for both, and obviously got the wrong color. Ok. I set to Tungsten in Camera RAW, 1dx was green, 5d3 wasn't. Next, I shoot in Tungsten WB in camera, 1Dx is correct, 5D3 looks green. Go figure.



I figure ACR might be at fault in the situation you describe. Have you tried the same thing using DPP?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

It's most certainly Camera RAW program, which I figured. It's not the camera.


----------



## canon816 (Aug 3, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> It's most certainly Camera RAW program, which I figured. It's not the camera.



Exactly what I was pointing out. Neuro and I are both on the same page with this one. This is truly the beauty of shooting RAW. You have so much data contained within the file that the post processing abilities are leagues ahead of JPG. If you were shooting JPG then all those settings really do matter.

I actually set all my NR and sharpening off in camera so that the LCD image review is more true to what I can expect the RAW file to look like. I have often shot an image that looked tack sharp on the LCD to find that it is not, but rather the "in camera" sharpening applied to the JPG rendition on the screen just looked tack sharp.


----------



## nightbreath (Aug 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > This is not true  Even if you shoot RAW it is being generated depending on settings in your camera. For example, make 3 high ISO shots with different noise reduction settings (no / normal / high) and you'll see difference in RAW (I did this test on 7D, not sure if all cameras behave the same).
> ...



I was using a light image viewer (Irfan View, 1.5 Mb + CRW plugin). Try it yourself if you want.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > nightbreath said:
> ...



Your info is correct, but not what we were talking about. We know that WB doesn't matter in RAW, what we were pointing out is the fact that shooting under proper WB, such as Tungsten, the 5D3 has a slight green hue in the shadows. The 1DX doesn't. You cannot fix this green hue, seemingly caused by WB but maybe not, in post. Myself and another photographer have noticed this. Sorry I was not clearer on this point in my post.

On the other hand, the 5D3's Tungsten WB is LESS "green" than the 1DX's Tungsten WB.  However, this issue can quickly be resolved via color temp. Another point I was not clear on. The problem therefore, is with the 5D3, not the 1DX.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2012)

Moreover, hopefully everyone is aware that an in-camera JPG Image is generated even when shooting only in raw, that's what you're seeing on the LCD review, but more importantly, that same JPG Image is used to generate the histogram that you may be relying upon to make exposure decisions. Thus, using a picture style like standard, which boosts the saturation a fair bit, can make you think you're blowing things out that you actually aren't, etc. 

@nightbreath - I believe your viewer is simply respecting the NR and other flags in the metadata. The RAW data are unaffected and when the file is opened in a proper converter and the settings are all set the same, those differences you're seeing will disappear.


----------



## nightbreath (Aug 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> @nightbreath - I believe your viewer is simply respecting the NR and other flags in the metadata. The RAW data are unaffected and when the file is opened in a proper converter and the settings are all set the same, those differences you're seeing will disappear.



I thought there was some noise reduction applied before AD conversion. I believe I read about it in some official Canon documentation. Did you hear anything like this?


----------



## NotABunny (Aug 11, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > nightbreath said:
> ...



IrfanView doesn't decode RAWs, it simply shows the embedded JPEG (which, depending on the camera, may even be of a lower resolution).


----------



## kaihp (Aug 12, 2012)

@bdunbar79: did you get to do the macro shots and the sports shots that you were talking about?
Or did you leave the matter, after deciding on keeping the 1DX'es for the sports shooting 

I really appreciate all your work on this.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 12, 2012)

kaihp said:


> @bdunbar79: did you get to do the macro shots and the sports shots that you were talking about?
> Or did you leave the matter, after deciding on keeping the 1DX'es for the sports shooting
> 
> I really appreciate all your work on this.



Actually, I did not leave the matter. As nightbreath is likely impatient with me as well, I have had nothing but rain and wind here the last 5 days. I wouldn't think anyone would really value any tests in those situations  Yes I will have ample opportunity this week to shoot outdoors, macro and action, at low ISO. Forecast looks good. And I thought from my tests the 1DX is more than good enough, so I went with those for sports and keep a 5D3 as well. I still am curious about detail vs. detail though, at low ISO's and I hope to gain information regarding that this week. I will give the RAW's to another gentleman on here, and then let him do the exact same post-processing on each (I'll be doing the processing of many photos while I'll give him one each of each camera's). Stay tuned!


----------



## kaihp (Aug 12, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > @bdunbar79: did you get to do the macro shots and the sports shots that you were talking about?
> ...


I wasn't trying to be impatient, just wondering if you left it or not. As written in another thread, I'm considering how the 5D3 works for sports shooting, since getting proper AF for sports is the one point I've had problems with. So any feedback on how the AF tracking performs on the 5D3 is highly appreciated.
If you come back and tell me it stinks and the 1DX rocks, I just have to go and kill myself somewhere quietly 

I may be itching to get a new body, but my fingers are not twitching just yet so I don't have a problem waiting a week for your research.

Thanks again.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 12, 2012)

kaihp said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > kaihp said:
> ...



Well, I can tell you this. The AF on the 5D Mark III, that I just tested out tonight, is pretty brilliant. I had it in one shot and was shooting water drops hitting water with green food coloring in it. The cup with watter under the faucet was pretty much in the dark, as I was using a flash and the AF still nailed the edge of the cup/water edge at the brim of the cup. So at least we know it focuses brilliantly in very low light. Obviously I didn't need it in AI Servo, so that'll yet to be seen.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 12, 2012)

This was the shot I was speaking of; AF in near dark conditions, 600EX-RT at 1/8000second, f/4. Since I couldn't see very well, I doubt I was focused where the drop hit.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 12, 2012)

This one may have focused on the drop area a bit better. Again, I couldn't see well at all, but at least the AF found something and locked, unlike the 5D Mark II.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 12, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > I may be itching to get a new body, but my fingers are not twitching just yet so I don't have a problem waiting a week for your research.
> ...


Dang, had to go and get some paper to swipe the floor from my salivation  And my fingers are starting to twitch now! ;D


----------



## DArora (Aug 12, 2012)

Guys, check this out: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth/photography/tips-solutions/full-frame-comparison-look-eos-5d-mark-iii-eos-1d-x

A comparison between these two camera by Canon Product Educator - John Stoilov.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 12, 2012)

The af maybe similar, but the abillity to lock and track isn't... the 1d is soo damn fast and accurate I'm locking and tracking and shooting pictures I never could, even with the 5d3.. and to swap to vertical and have the buttons identical to horizontal is fantastic !!

Noisewise I use 2500 the same way I used 1250 on the 5d3...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 12, 2012)

I was not able to do any comparison since these photos are not keepers. I was just curious as to how well the 5D3 could focus in very low light. To give you an idea, I had my flash set to the right and ISO was still 8000. The only real way to know is to take both cameras to a sporting event indoors and shoot AI Servo and get a feel for it. Although I agree, the 1DX focusing is amazing. The focusing on the 5D3 is tremendously better than the 5D2.

I will do this experiment again. Next time I will have a portable light on one side at least, and fill flash on the part of the sink that is more vacant. Manual focus where the drop will hit, and do a 6 fps burst on the 5D3 and 12fps burst on the 1DX. It will be fun to see if there are any additional parts of the splash recorded by the 1DX vs the 5D3.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 12, 2012)

I'm reading confusing things, but does anyone happen to know if I can get the focusing screen that shows true dof faster than 2,5 for the 1d X?

Think it was EG-S for the 5d mkII.


----------

