# Canon 1DX vs 5DIII Wildlife Comparison



## East Wind Photography (Feb 18, 2013)

I just completed my two week eval of the Canon 1DX shooting wildlife exclusively. I shoot regularly with a 5DIII and was curious to see what the 1DX might offer over the 5DIII. I paired it up with a 600 f/4 and shot with and without a 1.4X III converter. I tried the 2XIII but at AFMA -20 it was still not focusing...tried a few manual focus shots and LV but gave up. I spent the first few days getting the 600 and 600+1.4x focus adjusted using AFMA. Tried the dot method and Focal and just gave up and did it by hand shooting ducks on a lake. All of my testing was done in RAW mode and images were compared/processed using PS CS5.

Here are my comments after using the 1DX for two weeks shooting various waterfowl and bald eagles:

•	12 fps does not really offer much. Sounds nice in theory but for wildlife I think it’s excessive. 6 to 8 gives you enough to work with.
•	1DX shutter is LOUD!!!! So loud that it scares away anything in earshot. The 5DIII even in high speed drive mode is much much quieter. Drop the 5D3 into silent mode and ducks within 20ft still cant hear it.
•	Shooting up to ISO 1000 I did not see any improvement in noise levels. I’m sure it’s better but not enough to notice in real world situations.
•	1DX is 18MP full frame. Compared to my 5DIII at 22MP full frame, I believe the noise patterns on the 5D3 are actually smaller and less noticeable. Probobly due to the slightly higher pixel density.
•	I did not see any improvement in image sharpness
•	I did not see any improvement in dynamic range…though I’m sure it’s better…just cant see it in real world wildlife use.
•	The thing soaks battery like no tomorrow. Had to charge the battery at 50% after two shoots. Compared to two weeks with the 5DIII and dual batteries in the grip. 1DX you can only have one battery at a time.
•	Some of the added firmware features are nice and there are more programmable buttons but I didn’t find them useful or necessary over what I already have on the 5DIII. None of the extra features on the 1DX offered anything useful for wildlife photography over the 5DIII.
•	1DX costs twice as much.

The 1DX is clearly geared up for action sports photography and is a bit more rugged and water sealed than the 5DIII. As much as I wanted to qualify it as a BETTER wildlife camera, I just could not. Pixel peepers will have their say but for those of us that live in the real world, the 5DIII is just as good as the 1DX and due to the higher pixel density I would put it slightly ahead of the 1DX for this kind of work.

These comments are based on my opinion shooting wildlife for 30 years. Others will have their opinions and I welcome them for the sake of open discussion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2013)

Thanks for posting your impressions!

Some random comments:



East Wind Photography said:


> •	Some of the added firmware features are nice and there are more programmable buttons but I didn’t find them useful or necessary over what I already have on the 5DIII.



I like the ability to switch among my C# modes with the M.Fn button and not have to move my hands as they hold the camera. I have C2 set up for static/perched birds and C3 for BIF, and can switch instantly when a bird takes off, without taking my eye off the subject.



East Wind Photography said:


> •	Shooting up to ISO 1000 I did not see any improvement in noise levels. I’m sure it’s better but not enough to notice in real world situations.



I think the ISO noise advantage is really at higher ISO settings. Personally, >25% of my shots with the 1D X are at higher than ISO 3200, and that's especially common with an f/8 lens combo (600 II + 2xIII, for example).



East Wind Photography said:


> •	The thing soaks battery like no tomorrow. Had to charge the battery at 50% after two shoots. Compared to two weeks with the 5DIII and dual batteries in the grip. 1DX you can only have one battery at a time.



Interesting... I was out shooting yesterday, shot ~500 images and when I checked the battery status, it was 85%. I do have two batteries, but I've never needed to change one during a shooting day (having two is great for short trips, though...that charger is BIG, and I'd prefer to leave it at home if possible). 

Personally, I'm quite happy with the 1D X, but I'm sure I'd be happy with the 5DIII as well. IMO, one of the big benefits of the 1D X is the ergonomics - I always use a battery grip, and having the integrated one is a lot nicer, for me.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 18, 2013)

You need to have programmable C# settings because without the dial on top you have to change the mode with a button press and dial turn. Difficult to do...at least when your not used to doing it that way. On the 5DIII you can just swing the dial all the way to end to get to your C# modes. The programmable buttons definitely take some getting used to and after two weeks I still was not comfortable doing that on the fly with an incoming eagle on approach. 

Regarding battery levels...It's very easy to rack up 500 shots at 12 fps. I was hitting that easily in one day of shooting. There is also the chimping effect one experiences with any new camera.  I'm sure that helped with the battery drain.



neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for posting your impressions!
> 
> Some random comments:
> 
> ...


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 18, 2013)

The Battery drain may be related to the (correct me if I am wrong) 1Dx being able to supply higher voltage/amperage to the lens so it can AF faster? 



> > Quote from: East Wind Photography on Today at 10:41:01 AM
> > • Some of the added firmware features are nice and there are more programmable buttons but I didn’t find them useful or necessary over what I already have on the 5DIII.
> 
> 
> ...



This is a nice feature for sports as well. I do similar things with my Mk3/(now dead) 7D. Can't wait to get a 1Dx from CPS to play with!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 18, 2013)

Thanks for your impressions. While I won't argue with you on overall wildlife shooting, I do think overall, as a whole, the 1DX still offers more. For well-lit wildlife? Maybe not. But considering all "real world" situations, the 1DX is still better. I'm not sure why you say "us in the real world" because my real world IS low-lit venues with high action, where the 5D3 can't cut it. Also, if you shoot higher ISO, the 1DX files can be processed, pushed, and pulled far more than any 5D3 file. Despite having less MP's, the highlights and shadows have more detail. I will also agree that for wildlife, 12 fps probably isn't needed, although I know gary samples has used that feature quite a bit for his work. You're right, the shutter is LOUD.

Battery life? Are you kidding? I've shot 4 basketball games in high burst mode on one battery . 

For the 5D3, I love the 22 mp, and I also love silent shutter like yourself. I use it extensively for tennis and golf. Either way, if the 1DX doesn't offer you anything additional over the 5D3, then use the 5D3. Afterall, I have one and am very happy with it.

In fact, if the 1DX hadn't come out, I'd probably be shooting everything with a 1D4/5D3 combo. Good luck and I look forward to seeing your wildlife photography!

I hope you take my comments/arguments as friendly and for fun . Afterall, you've been doing this for 30 years!


----------



## altenae (Feb 18, 2013)

> 12 fps does not really offer much. Sounds nice in theory but for wildlife I think it’s excessive




is it !!
Because of the 10/12 fps I have more pictures to choose from a burst of 10/12 fps.

http://www.birdpix.nl/album_page.php?pic_id=335219

Edward


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> The Battery drain may be related to the (correct me if I am wrong) 1Dx being able to supply higher voltage/amperage to the lens so it can AF faster?



Yes, the 1-series bodies do drive the lens AF motors faster. With some lenses, like the superteles, the AF is blazingly fast already, so while there may be a difference with the 1-series, it may not be noticeable. But with a lens like the 85L II, the faster AF is evident. A long time ago, I read the TDP review of the 85L and noted that Bryan stated, "_While this lens certainly has the aperture and image quality to be an excellent indoor action sports lens, the AF performance is only "good enough" in my opinion..._" After getting an 85L, I wondered about that, because the AF was pretty darn slow on my 7D and 5DII. But Bryan used 1DsIII's to shoot, and with the 1D X, I can see that the 85L does ok in a sports setting.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 18, 2013)

Well I just got to use it for only two weeks. During that time while there were a LOT more photos to sift through for post, I personally didn't find that the extra images really gave me any better selection than what I have obtained with the 5DIII at 6 fps. This is purely subjective to the photographer and varying subjects may offer better possibilities at 12fps. It just didn't offer me anything more other than extra photos that I couldn't use.



altenae said:


> > 12 fps does not really offer much. Sounds nice in theory but for wildlife I think it’s excessive
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 18, 2013)

I will try to post some images here soon. I didn't see any point trying to post comparisons as there was nothing that would have shown one was better over the other. Regarding ISO, yes possibly if you shoot a lot of ISO greater than 1000 then the 1DX may offer you lower noise and possibly higher contrast detail. However with wildlife photography that I typically shoot, if the lighting is bad enough to need more than ISO 1000 then I usually pass anyway. I found even with the 1DX that BIF over ISO 1000 were marginal at best and nothing like what you get at lower ISOs. Again from a comparison standpoint I didn't see much difference between the 5D3 and 1DX even shooting close to sunset. I'm not sure I would spend an extra 3K for it if my main subjects were wildlife.



bdunbar79 said:


> Thanks for your impressions. While I won't argue with you on overall wildlife shooting, I do think overall, as a whole, the 1DX still offers more. For well-lit wildlife? Maybe not. But considering all "real world" situations, the 1DX is still better. I'm not sure why you say "us in the real world" because my real world IS low-lit venues with high action, where the 5D3 can't cut it. Also, if you shoot higher ISO, the 1DX files can be processed, pushed, and pulled far more than any 5D3 file. Despite having less MP's, the highlights and shadows have more detail. I will also agree that for wildlife, 12 fps probably isn't needed, although I know gary samples has used that feature quite a bit for his work. You're right, the shutter is LOUD.
> 
> Battery life? Are you kidding? I've shot 4 basketball games in high burst mode on one battery .
> 
> ...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 18, 2013)

In my case this could be the case. I only used the 600 F/4 and sometimes with the 1.4x iii extender. I'm sure the 600 tele pulls a lot of amperage if it's available. With the 5DIII I think it's limited internally and therefore doesn't drain the battery excessively.

I also don't know the history of the battery I was using...it's possible it had aged quite a bit. The loaner came from CPS so who knows....



neuroanatomist said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > The Battery drain may be related to the (correct me if I am wrong) 1Dx being able to supply higher voltage/amperage to the lens so it can AF faster?
> ...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 18, 2013)

It's okay if you do not choose to share, I simply enjoy seeing others' wildlife photography because it's something I don't get to do myself. 

One thing I did notice was cropping. I can notice the less 4 MP's in heavy cropping between the 2 cameras.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > The Battery drain may be related to the (correct me if I am wrong) 1Dx being able to supply higher voltage/amperage to the lens so it can AF faster?
> ...



True on the super telephotos, my 200 (which I guess is more medium~) and 400 MK II are fast regardless of the body. Good to know lenses like the 85 benefit from the higher voltage. Is it a MK I or MK II?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 18, 2013)

That is a good point. I also noticed that if I took an image down relative to what I could do on the 5DIII that it would not hold up. I would have to back out the crop for it to remain sensible. While the effect is minimal it may be important for some shooters that cant afford a big tele. 4MP difference doesn't sound like much but it does offer a slight advantage considering pixel density alone.



bdunbar79 said:


> It's okay if you do not choose to share, I simply enjoy seeing others' wildlife photography because it's something I don't get to do myself.
> 
> One thing I did notice was cropping. I can notice the less 4 MP's in heavy cropping between the 2 cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> True on the super telephotos, my 200 (which I guess is more medium~) and 400 MK II are fast regardless of the body. Good to know lenses like the 85 benefit from the higher voltage. Is it a MK I or MK II?



I have the 85L II, which Canon claims has improved AF speed relative to the MkI ('improved' in the sense that a tortise has improved ground speed relative to a snail...).


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > True on the super telephotos, my 200 (which I guess is more medium~) and 400 MK II are fast regardless of the body. Good to know lenses like the 85 benefit from the higher voltage. Is it a MK I or MK II?
> ...



Sounds about right. Well I guess like East Wind I will have to do my own testing and see If I just make the dive into 1d territory. Very excited to test the shorter lenses and compare AF speed side by side.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 18, 2013)

1Dx > 5D3 but then again 2x 5D3's = 1Dx. :|


----------



## bobcat300 (Feb 18, 2013)

I guess if you just shooting wildlife that is still then a 5D mark 3 will do just fine, But if your after wildlife in action then 12 fps is were its at. I have both camera's and I have not had any issues with the battery life on the 1 DX and have been shooting the this camera since mid July of 2012


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 1Dx > 5D3 but then again 2x 5D3's = 1Dx. :|



Haha~.. Btw Thanks for the great reviews on your blog=)


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 18, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 1Dx > 5D3 but then again 2x 5D3's = 1Dx. :|
> ...



Thank you. I feel bad because I want to wrap up the 135L review soon but I've been shooting with it so much that I haven't even bothered with the review. It's that good.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 18, 2013)

To the original post and poster, East Wind Photography (I don't want to quote the whole post):

While I have no real world experience with either camera yet (I’ve only edited some 5D3 raw files in both CS5 and CS6, and shot with it briefly)…let me point out some obvious oddities I noticed:

1) You limited yourself to ISO 1000 or below. That’s fine for shooting ducks in bright sunlight…not so nice for shooting woodducks in dawn or dusk hours (the only time they show up at my pond, or most anywhere in my area). Also not so good for shooting any other type wildlife in low light. Some of us like the lighting effect of shooting in low light, or low sun…or even post sunset or pre dawn. It can add drama, and the colors can be nice. And many animals are simply on the move at those times. Mid day light is also boring, and a bit played out. Some people like me, enjoy the idea of pushing shutter speed beyond 1/2000 in less than ideal light. I also like to capture things like deer on the run, at sunset.

2)	You’re saying 12 fps isn’t necessary for you. I say it really depends on the speed of the animal. I’ve rented the predecessor to the 1Dx, and found its 10 fps entirely too slow for trying to capture small birds in flight (something most bird people never do anyway…which is part of the reason it appeals to me. Anyone can slap on a supertele and shoot a bird once it is resting on a limb, or swimming slowly in a pond or lake.) The ideal camera for small birds in flight, would be a high speed video camera, but of course those still images don’t print very big (especially if cropping is necessary)…and high speed cameras cost more than the new Porsche I would rather purchase for that amount of money.

3)	It seems to me, that you may well have had your mind made up before you did this comparison, since you deliberately are faulting the 1Dx where it is weak, and in the areas it’s not designed to excel in…such as: A price range similar to the 5D3; the image’s pixel dimensions; the larger camera size; the increased battery demand; the supposed lack of DR at or below ISO 1000 (If you need that, buy a Nikon D800…it’s better in that range than your 5D3, and produces a radically larger image size to boot). The 1Dx is meant for people who aren’t afraid to occasionally shoot at or above ISO 10,000, let alone 1000! Besides, even the 5D3 doesn’t lose significant resolution until ISO 12,800 (tests have shown this). If you are one of those people (and it seems like there’s too many of you), that only want to shoot pictures that produce very little noise WITHOUT employing any of the excellent NR methods available today (many of them lose essentially no detail)…again, I have to wonder why? That just seems silly to me. The idea that “I will never shoot a picture that requires any sort of NR at all, all sliders will be at zero, come hell or high water”. And yet you imply you’re NOT a pixel peeper??? ONLY A PIXEL PEEPER would care about tiny amounts of noise when viewed at 100%!!

4)	As for “pixel peepers”…anyone who spends more than $500 on any type of camera, and doesn’t do at least some amount of pixel peeping, is wasting their time and money. Digital files are meant to be peeped at the edit stage. Digital files are meant to be edited, enhanced, and optimized in a creative way (whether minimalist or extreme.) What are you, some kind of camera Quaker or something? Sorry, but I see photographers as indeed a type of artist. We are not simply robots who don’t think for ourselves. We interpret the world around us in a creative way, and we aren't afraid to use any tool at our disposal.

To fault the 1Dx for not being everything a 5D3 is, to you, is not all that valid an exercise. I will grant you, some of your findings are worthwhile to read, but I’m not sure most wildlife photographers will agree with your conclusion. I will also grant you that, given the price, the size, and the 5D3’s AF sensor (a feature pioneered FIRST for the 1Dx)…then the 5D3 represents an extremely capable camera for most uses. 

But that’s nothing most people don’t already know. So basically, much of what you have said, is nothing new.

What would have been interesting to me, is if you compared the low light AF performance of both cameras in servo mode, and especially the AF speed. For example, a duck that is flying off the water toward you, and then panning back to another duck (or perhaps a moose), that is at the far end of the lake...and going back and forth between the two separate subjects...all while the duck in the foreground closes in on your location quickly. And do all this at sunset...now that would have told me more of what I wanted to know about whether the 1Dx is a more capable camera overall, than the 5D3. I'm guessing it is. Doesn't mean it's a better overall "value", of course. But value is relative.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 18, 2013)

RLPhoto, I agree, the 135L is a fabulous lens. I've happily had mine for nearly 4 years.


----------



## jrista (Feb 19, 2013)

Thank you so much for the feedback, EWP. As someone in the market for a good birding camera, I've been considering the merits of both the 5D III and 1D X. I really don't want to spend the kind of money I would have to on the 1D X, as I am primarily a hobbyist, with a sale of a print every great once in a while. Your opinion on the 1D X shutter sound might be sealing the deal for the 5D III...I think a quiet shutter would be very helpful when it comes to shooting jittery birds up close (even within a blind). 

I did want to comment on one thing, though. Regarding ISO:



East Wind Photography said:


> •	Shooting up to ISO 1000 I did not see any improvement in noise levels. I’m sure it’s better but not enough to notice in real world situations.



This is not really surprising. The improvements in ISO are really only going to be apparent at higher ISO settings. While the improvement in full well capacity for the 1D X, thanks to the larger pixels and higher Q.E. (47%) over past-generation sensors (which were closer to 25-38%), will result in the same absolute improvement at all ISO settings, however the relative improvement will increase as ISO is increased, thanks to the nature of photon shot noise. At lower ISO settings, a well-exposed (ETTRed) photo will have roughly the same absolute differences in pixel saturation for a given tone as at higher ISO settings, however because the maximum saturation is lower by orders of magnitude at say ISO 12800 than at ISO 100, those same absolute differences become much larger relative differences, and appear to result in far more noise. 

At ISO 3200, for example, the 1D X has a three-fold advantage over my 7D. The 7D is quite noisy at ISO 3200, but the 1D X is incredibly clear. From the bird photography I've seen that was taken with the 1D X, photos taken at ISO 16000 to 25600 appear to be about as noisy as ISO 3200 on my 7D. That is nearly a three-fold improvement in high ISO performance (and probably more so, given the much better editing and noise removal latitude that the 1D series has historically offered over lesser models.) I would be willing to bet that you could push ISO to 6400 or more in your work, and in comparison to older cameras you have used the 1D X would fare increasingly better as ISO was increased.


----------



## gary samples (Feb 19, 2013)

when shooting things that fly 12fps is a God send thanks Canon !!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 19, 2013)

Jrista, well said, although regarding ISO, I did mention that in my critique of his findings.

It really all just depends on if you want to use NR in post, or not. If you're spending the kind of money we're talking about here, but you "can't be bothered" to spend much time in post...then you're really just playing, and not doing serious work, or worse...not making full use of the tools you've bought.

Oh, and Jrista, regarding what you said in another thread about the native ISO, and how the settings above that are fake...I always knew that. However, isn't the RAW file storing more bits of information at the time of capture, if those settings are used to boost the exposure level up to normal...as compared to underexposing at the time of capture at a lower ISO setting (and then boosting exposure by 3 or 4 stops in post)?

I.e., if you don't use the boosted ISO at capture, then the file that gets stored, is smaller than a resulting file where the boost was used to bring the exposure up to what the camera says is normal. (The file size goes from say 20MB, down to 12MB or less). 

I mean, otherwise, what's the point of ever trying to get the exposure right at capture? You're saying that you have to get the exposure right at capture, _except_ when using an ISO that is above the native? I don't understand how this could be, since the file that gets stored, has less information, if it is underexposed by 4 stops. Sure that information is stored based on a boosted sensor's output (thus you are seeing a reduced dynamic range from the sensor, with all the other unwanted artifacts)...but the file itself has more bits, does it not?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 19, 2013)

Awesome! On the ISO topic I didn't find the differences between the 1DX and 5DIII to be so significant to really make much difference. I took a number of shots with both at sunset and some after the sun went down. I ran the ISO up to 3200 and the noise on the 1DX was not much better than the 5DIII and in fact the noise patterns on the 1DX images were larger and more difficult to make them less obvious.

For those that like to shoot at higher ISO's, go for it but I found the IQ even on the 1DX to be sub par for anything other than an image that would be offset printed. It is vastly improved over the 7D and earlier models. However my comparison was with the 5DIII as both already blow the doors off the 7D and earlier models.

I totally understand those who enjoy shooting in low light and the 1DX and 5DIII open up the possibilities...However, the IQ above ISO1000 on either (vastly improved) over 7D and 5DII, still does not provide the level of quality that I could enlarge and hang on my wall. It's personal preference but I can tell you that my customers enjoy no grain 20x30's more than ones that are noisy taken at ISO1000 or higher.

So for someone who wants the best value for their dollar I would recommend the 5DIII.



jrista said:


> Thank you so much for the feedback, EWP. As someone in the market for a good birding camera, I've been considering the merits of both the 5D III and 1D X. I really don't want to spend the kind of money I would have to on the 1D X, as I am primarily a hobbyist, with a sale of a print every great once in a while. Your opinion on the 1D X shutter sound might be sealing the deal for the 5D III...I think a quiet shutter would be very helpful when it comes to shooting jittery birds up close (even within a blind).
> 
> I did want to comment on one thing, though. Regarding ISO:
> 
> ...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 19, 2013)

I guess I'm lost then. I don't notice ANY noise problems with the 1DX and I routinely shoot ISO 5000. Do you post process??


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 19, 2013)

I may be cynical, but I get the feeling the OP would have found in favour of the 5D Mark III no matter what. In fact, it is almost as if he started this thread just to say he prefers the 5D Mark III.

But here is what I find strange:

1) Says 12 fps is excessive.
2) AFMAs on a moving subject
3) Compares ISOs when at 1,000

I forget what else. Something definitely smells fishy, but that is just mho.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 19, 2013)

Yep as described earlier I use PS CS5 and shoot everything in RAW. Just to be honest I routinely also use my 5DIII at ISO's higher than 5000 but not for wildlife. I generally try to fill the frame as much as possible in such situations to reduce the size of the noise patterns. However with wildlife, unless you have 200-400 zoom, you often have to crop and that is where the problem lies. When you get to ISO 1000 even on the 1DX, and start cropping, you lose your ability to enlarge or have to post process so much that the image begins to look artificial....and with 18MP you cant crop much...again as compared to the 5DIII where you can cut it a bit deeper. 18MP is nothing to sneeze at though.

For some situations noise (grain) is not a bad thing and as long as it's random and not distracting you can work with it. Especially if you print it on canvas or luster papers. I still have problems when the noise interferes with the ability to split feathers on a bird.





bdunbar79 said:


> I guess I'm lost then. I don't notice ANY noise problems with the 1DX and I routinely shoot ISO 5000. Do you post process??


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 19, 2013)

Wait, I got you. You mean relative to shoot below ISO 1000. I got it, sorry.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 19, 2013)

you must have been out fishing too long  I do prefer the 5DIII but only after using the 1DX for a couple of weeks. I had higher hopes for the 1DX and had aspired to buy one some day. But I was disappointed in the fact that for the extra 3K I did not see that much over the 5DIII. One of the biggest annoyances I found of the 1dX 12fps drive mode was the sheer noise from the shutter. When I would let it rip, it would actually scare away herons and ducks. All of the work trying to stealthily get close to the subjects was gone in an instant. That was a shock and never have that issue shooting with the 5DIII.

I took the approach of looking at the 1DX from a practical aspect and what I was seeing on my final images comparing the 1DX to the 5DIII. I wasn't basing it on theoretical limits or assigning score ratings. And since I didn't have 6K wrapped up in it I didn't have to justify that by making superior claims on features that I didn't really need, see as useful for the work I was doing, or that it made THAT big of difference in the final image.



expatinasia said:


> I may be cynical, but I get the feeling the OP would have found in favour of the 5D Mark III no matter what. In fact, it is almost as if he started this thread just to say he prefers the 5D Mark III.
> 
> But here is what I find strange:
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> You're saying that you have to get the exposure right at capture, _except_ when using an ISO that is above the native? I don't understand how this could be, since the file that gets stored, has less information, if it is underexposed by 4 stops. Sure that information is stored based on a boosted sensor's output (thus you are seeing a reduced dynamic range from the sensor, with all the other unwanted artifacts)...but the file itself has more bits, does it not?



Native ISO uses analog gain, before the signal is digitized. Expanded ISOs are digital gain, applied after ADC on top of the maximum analog gain. There's no difference between shooting at H2 and shooting at max native then pushing two stops in post.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 19, 2013)

And to be with on this, I don't notice any noise problems at ISO 5000 on the 5DIII either provided you are careful of the situation you use it in and post process efficiently. 



bdunbar79 said:


> I guess I'm lost then. I don't notice ANY noise problems with the 1DX and I routinely shoot ISO 5000. Do you post process??


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 19, 2013)

Neuro, thank you for the clarification. I assume the digitally boosted gain, is what adds the (unnecessary) information to the file at capture, to make it larger than the otherwise under-exposed file, set to maximum native ISO.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 19, 2013)

East Wind, I can gaurantee I could produce a grain free, sharp 20x30 with either the 1DX or a 5D3, at ISO 1250, 1600, 2000, 2500, 3200, and possibly 4000. And if the image is of an animal where the animal in the middle of the picture, is the only thing in focus...then I could go as high as ISO 10,000 on the 5D3, and 12,800 on the 1DX. I could use only CS5 to do it, although ideally the higher ISO shots above 4000 would need NR better than PS (for those people that need to look at the print from 8 inches in front of it).

Neither camera's native resolution would be printable at 300 dpi, for a 20x30. That resolution, is 54 megapixels. I know because I recently scaled an image of mine, and produced a 20x30 print for one of my customers, shot with my puny little 15.1 MP 50D, at ISO 320....with a 200mm f/4 lens, at f/4.5. (full frame equivalent 280mm). It is hanging in their lobby, for all their customers to see. It is sharp almost to the corners, and doesn't look like it was scaled up. I used the standard bicubic, amongst other tweaks.

So again, you need not limit yourself to ISO 1000. And again, the true test, would have been a comparison between the autofocus performance of the two bodies, in low light. Hindsight now, of course.


----------



## jrista (Feb 19, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Awesome! On the ISO topic I didn't find the differences between the 1DX and 5DIII to be so significant to really make much difference. I took a number of shots with both at sunset and some after the sun went down. I ran the ISO up to 3200 and the noise on the 1DX was not much better than the 5DIII and in fact the noise patterns on the 1DX images were larger and more difficult to make them less obvious.



Just to make sure I understand, are you referring to things like banding noise when you use the term "noise patterns"? The 1D X does have higher read noise than the 5D III, and at lower ISO settings (100-800) I guess I wouldn't be surprised if it did have slightly more banding. At high ISO, I'd be surprised if you encountered anything but random photon noise with both cameras...however the higher pixel density of the 5D III would basically mean that, assuming identical subject framing, you have more pixels on subject, so noise is a smaller factor of detail overall. In other words...the lower resolution of the 1D X is the detractor in your comparison of the two cameras.


----------



## eml58 (Feb 19, 2013)

Just back from a Dive Trip, using the 1dx & 5DMK3 in Seacam Housings for the first time, 1Dx rules, High ISO leaves the 5DMK3 way behind, but the larger form factor in high current is a bitch.

Most of my Wildlife shooting other then Diving, is Antarctic, Arctic & Africa, love the small form factor of the 5DMK3, always use it combined with the 70-200f2.8 II, but when it comes to dust & weather sealing, again, the 1Dx is worth it's weight in Gold Coins, especially combined with the 400f/2.8 II & 600 f/4 II.

Cant get more than 12fps from the 1Dx, bummer, when you have a Cheater on the hunt going 70kph, 12fps isn't enough, but it'll do until something better comes along. Early morning Africa, late afternoon Africa, 1Dx rules again on the ability to operate at high ISO and retrieve stunning photos.

Both Cameras are tools, but tools for slightly different uses, and budgets, and both Cameras are amazing pieces of technology, Use whichever flips your hair back.


----------



## R9knash (Feb 19, 2013)

I really wanted the 1DX for wildlife but like the OP, there were a few limitations that made it less attractive than the 5DIII. 
1- The 18 MP vs the 22 MP does make a difference when cropping. Obviously if one can fill the frame with the desired correct composition, it is less of a problem but is usually not possible when reach with detail is a function of pixel density. A noisy detailed crop is better than one with big fat clean pixels that fail to provide enough detail. Noise reduction software cleans up noise better than not enough pixels that fail to provide the detail.
2- The 1DX shutter is way too noisy for a lot of wildlife. Imagine to my chagrin when a rare opportunity was immediately spoiled when the bratta-bat-tat of the shutter caused the wolf to take one look at me, do an about face and trot off. I silently cursed while thinking how the 5DIII's shutter operation in silent stealth mode wouldn't have awoken a church-mouse at a wedding. Even single-shot is too noisy for some wildlife situations. Wild grizzlies hear quite well even when you are hiding from them. That click sound from the shutter is enough to make them aware of your presence. I hate that moment of fear when they look directly at you and you wonder what they will do next.

I do disagree with the OP regarding 6 fps being fast enough. No no no! Since most truly wild wildlife doesn't take direction well from the photographer, "work with me" I shouted in vain to the owl as it took off directly towards me. With 12 fps there are much better opportunities to capture the expressive moments when the bird transitions from gravity bound to taking flight, or the action of two lynx playing with each other, it makes sense to have the ability to capture more of those sequences than fewer. I'm not a machine that can capture decisive moments in single-shot of such opportunities. 

I wishfully wish, that the much awaited 5DIII firmware update will include providing 8 fps to go along with AF at f/8.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 20, 2013)

(OP) Wow I really didn't expect to get so many responses regarding 12fps being more desirable than 6 or 8. So after hearing everyone's arguments, I agree that in some situations 12fps would be better. In some cases maybe 12fps would still not be enough.

However one thing that I still cannot live with is the LOUD shutter at 12fps for shooting wildlife. Just in the two weeks that I was shooting with the 1DX I had several occasions where the noise scared off wildlife that I would have otherwise had more time to shoot at 6 or 8 fps. In one case it had scared off mergansers which I had not even seen yet from the blind.

I can counter that with one experience with the 5DIII I had recently where I was able to photograph a couple of foxes from 25ft away in drive mode and the noise did not scare them off.

I can understand the need for as many frames as possible in some situations but I don't believe it's worth it if it's so loud as to affect what you are trying to photograph in the first place. I still hold to my position that the 1DX is primarily geared up for sports photography.

Does the 1DX offer a lot of benefits? Yes but it's still my opinion that the 5DIII is a worthy wildlife camera at half the price if you can live without 12fps drive mode.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 20, 2013)

I agree the 5D Mark III is a worthy candidate. Obviously it is, because people photographed wildlife long before the 1DX right? Anyways, just for fun, I'm pretending I'm starting over and have no gear. I've been contracted to shoot wildlife for my primary job, and I have to build up an equipment list. My first camera of choice I suppose would be a 1D Mark IV. I do this because of the 1.3x crop factor, the IQ, and the 10 fps. If the shutter is too loud I'd keep a 7D as backup camera. Later, when I can afford a 600 f/4L, I'd buy a FF 1DX, and shoot with all 3 cameras.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 20, 2013)

The VALUE of the 1DX over the 5D3 has been beaten to death. Whether you need the benefits of the 1DX over the 5D3, is totally up to you. But objectively they are there, and at face value over a variety of shooting situations, the 1DX whips the 5D3 soundly. I own both and it's really obvious to me. However, I need the benefits, whereas you might not.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 20, 2013)

R9knash said:


> I wishfully wish, that the much awaited 5DIII firmware update will include providing 8 fps to go along with AF at f/8.



Have you considered the late-night comedy circuit?


----------



## vmk (Feb 20, 2013)

+1



Ray2021 said:


> R9knash said:
> 
> 
> > I wishfully wish, that the much awaited 5DIII firmware update will include providing 8 fps to go along with AF at f/8.
> ...


----------



## Kernuak (Feb 20, 2013)

The silent shutter on the 5D MkIII is a real selling point for wildlife. Last October, I was photographing pine martens and they were affected more by the IS on my 300 f/2.8 than the shutter on the MkIII. On the flip side though, for certain situations, 6 fps isn't enough and while I haven't used the 1D X, the 8fps of the 7D was also very useful a couple of years ago for a woodpecker feeding young at a nest, as I couldn't predict exactly the moment of the food pass. That has in fact become my main reason for keeping hold of the 7D (the IQ over the 7D is just too great to worry too much about the loss of reach most of the time).


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 20, 2013)

in term of shooting and image quality purposes, they might be the same to our normal eyes. however, it is 2x the price because of these:

1. shutter lag
2. shutter life (more than 2x)
3. metering (i.e. iSA, spot link to AF, etc)
4. frame rate
5. sync speed
6. seals and beatup
7. build-in battery grip

that i have not yet talked about gigabit ethernet, newly design on sensor cleaning, battery life, multi-point MA, etc.

i am one of those 5d mark iii owers who are drooling for 1dx. i can not get it even though i can afford it (do not want to make my wife and my daughters feel bad even though she will okae when i ask for it)


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 20, 2013)

Hmmm yes at 12 fps it better have 2x the shutter life indeed! Not so sure I noticed from a practical sense any difference in shutter lag between the 5dIII and 1dx. Might be noticeable with remotely actuated triggers but I doubt many have reflexes good enough to take advantage of any decreased lag. I certainly didn't notice it and I've been shooting for 30 years. The metering linked to spot AF point is nice but I didn't see it give me anything in actual usage. I still had to over expose/underexpose based on highlight lighting or lack thereof and I don think it's of any use if you dont use evaluative metering. 

Weather sealing is important. If you spend a lot of time outdoors in the rain then its a plus....but I can still use my plastic bag which costs .25. Though with the 5DIII I really don't worry about rain much.

Regarding the battery grip.... the 1DX only accepts one battery in the grip and the life of the battery (at least the one I got from CPS) only gave me two days of shooting before I had to recharge at 50%. I unfortunately didn't check the shutter count...though I was chimping a lot and that does have some impact on battery life. The 5DIII takes two batteries in the grip and I can usually shoot for 2 weeks before needing to recharge around 50%. Not a deal breaker by any means though just means you need to carry that extra battery in your bag and take the 5lb charging station with you on extended trips.

I did not find the Ethernet port very practical for wildlife work...at least where one doesn't need remote triggering and what not. I didn't do any of that in the 2 weeks I had it and actually have only done it twice in 30 years, once on a film type camera. The other using Magic Lantern on a T2i. Didn't float my boat so never tried it again.

I too was drooling for the 1DX and I'm glad I got to evaluate it from CPS. Saved me 6K. Now I can wait to see what the 7DII has to offer.



ishdakuteb said:


> in term of shooting and image quality purposes, they might be the same to our normal eyes. however, it is 2x the price because of these:
> 
> 1. shutter lag
> 2. shutter life (more than 2x)
> ...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 20, 2013)

ChilledXpress said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The VALUE of the 1DX over the 5D3 has been beaten to death. Whether you need the benefits of the 1DX over the 5D3, is totally up to you. But objectively they are there, and at face value over a variety of shooting situations, the 1DX whips the 5D3 soundly. I own both and it's really obvious to me. However, I need the benefits, whereas you might not.
> ...



I don't mean to get into a defense type situation here. But I've shot 5D3 and 1DX files underexposed by one stop at ISO 5000. This is not uncommon at all in indoor sports photography where lighting will vary by as much as 2 stops depending on the position of the court. The RAW files look the same, but then post process. The 5D Mark III file is hopeless, while the 1DX file lightens up with little noise just nicely. It's way more than what you are saying. The RAW files are much more flexible and as someone who has shot thousands of indoor sports shots, I don't ever take my 5D3 with me anymore because the 1DX RAW files are much, much more flexible. If you are a sports or wedding photographer, the 1DX soundly beats the 5D3. I'm not saying the 5D3 is a bad camera. I use it all the time and with great, great success at event photography. It's just that everything the 5D3 does, the 1DX does it better. Everything.

Look at shadow and highlight recovery detail. Blow a highlight with each camera or underexpose a shadow with each camera. The 1DX file post-processed is much, much better than the 5D3 file and you can recover more detail, everytime. It's actually not even close. You would be much better off buying ONE 1DX than a pair of 5D Mark III's.

So to say that it doesn't beat the 5D3 soundly at anything but fps is just absurd.


----------



## gary samples (Feb 20, 2013)

No matter how you try to justify it Canon didn't stamp Flag ship model on there # 2 camera ! .


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 20, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> ChilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I can't say for the 1Dx (yet) but as you detailed with the highlight/shadow for ski/snowboard (day and night under the equivalent of stadium lights) I have to nail or get within a 3rd of a stop to the proper exposure every time with my 5d3/7d or the image is tough to use/unusable. I get my CPS 1Dx rental friday and can't wait. Just hoping the snow keeps coming~

On a side note.. remember the SN on your CPS 1dX Eastwind?~ Curious to see if we get the same one.


----------



## jrista (Feb 20, 2013)

East Wind,

It just sounds like you don't have need of the added benefits and features of the 1D X. I'll state that the loud shutter is a really important point, and probably the most significant and helpful thing I've heard from anyone so far who does wildlife and bird photography. I worry about the shutter sound on my 7D, and I know even it has scared things off at times. Knowing the 5D III has such a quiet shutter is a really critical bit of knowledge, and may be the tipping point for many who want a great wildlife camera (even if it costs them a bit on the frame rate front.) 

That said, there are many reasons to get the 1D X despite the 5D III's quieter shutter. For one, at higher ISO settings (WELL above ISO 1000, like 16000, 20000, 25600) the 1D X kicks the crap out of every other camera on the market. It may not be that important for wildlife, but in the case of bird photography, especially birds in flight on overcast days (when light, while dim, tends to be very nicely diffused), having very high ISO settings that are usable can mean getting or not getting the shot, and being able to print it when you get it. The 5D III has at least one stop less latitude in that area than the 1D X, maybe a bit more when using RAW...and that could be far more important than a quiet shutter.

Having a higher frame rate is also very useful, often in the same circumstances that very high ISO is useful. It does not guarantee you any more than the 5D III's 6fps, but having double the frame rate doubles your chances of nailing a better moment. If I had to choose between the 5D III 6fps and 7D 8fps, I'd pick the 5D III these days. I may even pick the 5D III against a camera with 10fps, but 12fps is DOUBLE, and for high speed action like birds in flight, it can be one of the more critical factors in getting the shot. With a proper blind, the shutter speed shouldn't be as scary as if you were simply in camo clothing (at least in my experience, the 7D shutter sound can be "scary" to birds if I'm not in a blind, but largely inconsequential when I am in a blind.) 



East Wind Photography said:


> Regarding the battery grip.... the 1DX only accepts one battery in the grip and the life of the battery (at least the one I got from CPS) only gave me two days of shooting before I had to recharge at 50%. I unfortunately didn't check the shutter count...though I was chimping a lot and that does have some impact on battery life. The 5DIII takes two batteries in the grip and I can usually shoot for 2 weeks before needing to recharge around 50%. Not a deal breaker by any means though just means you need to carry that extra battery in your bag and take the 5lb charging station with you on extended trips.



I'm curious what you mean by "recharge around 50%". Do you mean you are only draining your battery TO 50% before you recharge? If so, then I think you are greatly skewing the longevity of the 1D X battery. Personally, I use my batteries until they are nearly drained. I'll keep going and going until I start sensing increased shutter lag, which happens when the voltage drops below a certain threshold (which in the case of Canon batteries tends to be only shortly before the battery is completely drained.)

If you are saying you get 2 days of shooting on 50% charge, that would mean you should get around four days of shooting on a single full charge. The 1D X is definitely a higher powered body, particularly when operating at double the frame rate, and more so if you are backing up every shot to a secondary card. On top of that, the 1D X supplies more power to the lens for AF drive.

I'd also offer that you seem to be getting some very surprising longevity out of your 5D III battery life. Either you are using the 5D III in a very different way than the 1D X, or you have extra high capacity batteries or some thing like that. The 7D uses the same batteries as the 5D III, LP-E6. I have two of those in my battery grip, and under heavy use (filling up four to six 16GB memory cards a day) I can burn through the entire charge of both in two days or so. Under lighter shooting, they can go for about a week, but I'd be hard pressed to get two full weeks out of only half the charge...that would be over three weeks out of a full charge.

If you really do charge at 50%, I think you are probably wasting a LOT of the 1D X batteries potential. You should be getting the average power out of that battery until it is nearly empty. I am not sure you can get a full two weeks out of a single batteries charge, but you should certainly get more than two days.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 20, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> ...Now I can wait to see what the 7DII has to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



7d mark ii is the one that i am also waiting for. as if it is as good as rumors, then i am going to trade my 7d for 7d mark ii. my 30d will be in my everyday bag forever


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 20, 2013)

First off the 1DX makes an excellent sports camera. No doubt any way you hold it or light it, the 1DX is what one needs. I generally try to get my exposures correct though. To be off 3 stops personally doesn't fly with me  I've been doing it so long that I can see what the exposure needs to be. Never had an an issue pushing or pulling the 5D3 2 stops in post though. Cant say I ever tried 3 but I'll try it and see how it goes. I usually go at least 1 stop under on bald eagles in bright sun and at sunrise/sunset and never have any issues with that. Other than bright sun I use correct exposure or sometimes over depending on the BG highlight.

I'll see if the s/n is posted on the paperwork. I couldn't get it before the super bowl. I wonder why? 

I'd like to hear your experiences with shooting in snow as I didn't have any here to test with. I sometimes shoot against snow with the 5d3.



RMC33 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > ChilledXpress said:
> ...


----------



## seattlebirdman (Feb 20, 2013)

jrista said:


> I'm curious what you mean by "recharge around 50%". Do you mean you are only draining your battery TO 50% before you recharge? If so, then I think you are greatly skewing the longevity of the 1D X battery. Personally, I use my batteries until they are nearly drained. I'll keep going and going until I start sensing increased shutter lag, which happens when the voltage drops below a certain threshold (which in the case of Canon batteries tends to be only shortly before the battery is completely drained.)
> 
> If you are saying you get 2 days of shooting on 50% charge, that would mean you should get around four days of shooting on a single full charge. The 1D X is definitely a higher powered body, particularly when operating at double the frame rate, and more so if you are backing up every shot to a secondary card. On top of that, the 1D X supplies more power to the lens for AF drive.
> 
> ...



One reason to recharge when the battery gets down to 50% is because the max frame rate will drop from 12fps to 10fps. I'm not sure if affects anything else like focusing speed. One of the advantages of the 1Dx is that it provides more power to auto focus the lens quicker than the 5D3. Potentially that speed could also be lowered when the battery gets below 50% to conserve power.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 20, 2013)

EastWind:

I should clarify. The push/pulling with regards to 5D3 and 1DX files is not noticed until you get into ISO 3200 or above. Keep this in mind. If you do a file of each by an underexposure of -1 at ISO 800, let's say, the 5D3 has no problem and keeps up with the 1DX. Now, go to ISO 5000 and underexpose by -1 and the 5D3 file falls apart in relation to the 1DX file, in post when you do NR and brightening, in RAW. 

In conclusion, this has no impact on you. You don't shoot in those situations. But, if you are a wedding photographer, the 5D3 is great, it's just the 1DX is better. I shoot tons of events with my 5D3 and love it. However, if I know I'm going to be in tough situations, I take the 1DX instead, because I don't have to worry much in post. I would like to attach a file from the 1DX shot at ISO 5000, and in the field my meter reading was -1 1/3. I did 40% NR, then added +1.00 exposure in post! Finally did 55 sharpening and exported to level 5 jpg. You cannot get this shot with a 5D3. 

So even though you might not need this feature, it is there. Therefore, the 1DX has a lot more to offer than 12 fps over the 5D3 (not your claim). Again, you may not need the features I describe, and I really don't either other than in sports. Note that it was so dark I had to use my 135L at f/2.2, and therefore lost flexibility in distance and didn't quite get it framed correctly. For the paper, we simply cropped the top portion of the action shot and did a close up of him shooting.


----------



## jrista (Feb 21, 2013)

seattlebirdman said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious what you mean by "recharge around 50%". Do you mean you are only draining your battery TO 50% before you recharge? If so, then I think you are greatly skewing the longevity of the 1D X battery. Personally, I use my batteries until they are nearly drained. I'll keep going and going until I start sensing increased shutter lag, which happens when the voltage drops below a certain threshold (which in the case of Canon batteries tends to be only shortly before the battery is completely drained.)
> ...



Hmm, I guess I'd need to mess with a 1D X to see if you really lose that much by 50%. I mean, I would bet I'm very conservative in my estimates that you could get approximately double the life out of that battery. Power falloff flattens out, then tends to drop off more severely near the end of the batteries life. I'd be willing to bet you could get more out of the latter 50% than out of the former 50% charge. Now, whether you could consistently get maximum power out of it after 50% I can't say. I know my LP-E6 batteries supply consistent power until the last 20-30 minutes, and you can clearly hear the shutter speed drop once it hits that phase (which is where I'll swap out or charge.) 

I guess I'd be surprised if the battery for the powerful new 1D X really truly only supplied enough power to run the darn thing until it was 50% depleted... I guess its time to rent one, and see how it fares.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 21, 2013)

I've shot at one light on a 1DX battery and still, seemingly, maintained 12 fps considering I was in the middle of a game. I didn't notice any slow-down.


----------



## AG (Feb 21, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> the 5D3 file falls apart in relation to the 1DX file, in post when you do NR and brightening, in RAW.



I know that this is going to be dissed for suggesting but what editor are you using?

Im just curious if this is just due to the way say Lightroom processes the file as compared to say DPP or Aperture.

I could be wrong...and probably am, but its worth asking.


----------



## Northstar (Feb 21, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> I've shot at one light on a 1DX battery and still, seemingly, maintained 12 fps considering I was in the middle of a game. I didn't notice any slow-down.




I have also shot at less than 50% and not noticed a difference....though 12 vs 10 might be hard to differentiate. 

Also have read that you need to shoot at 1/1000 to get 12 fps....anybody with thoughts on this?


----------



## mrjinxx (Feb 21, 2013)

I too have noticed no slowdown at 1DX battery percentages down to 20%. At a recent surfing event I shot 1200 frames in the day and the battery was fine.

There is also something I ca't quite put my finger on about using the 1DX ...

Well yes I can, actually. I'm with bdunbar on this ... the camera is simply astonishing. It should be illegal. It can recover images that really shouldn't be allowed, if you're as crap as me. 12fps can get you the money shot which you could just miss at 6fps. And it feels pornographic in your hand.

The only downside to me is that shutter noise. It really does clatter. Using the 5D3 (or 5D2 or 50D) feels like you're using a wonderful and quiet toy in comparison. Aside from the noise (which has scared birds) it is truly insane. And it will pick up that just-scared bird and catch in in flight like no other camera you've ever used

And I'm sorry if this sounds over-protective too! But it is that good


----------



## jrista (Feb 21, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> EastWind:
> 
> I should clarify. The push/pulling with regards to 5D3 and 1DX files is not noticed until you get into ISO 3200 or above. Keep this in mind. If you do a file of each by an underexposure of -1 at ISO 800, let's say, the 5D3 has no problem and keeps up with the 1DX. Now, go to ISO 5000 and underexpose by -1 and the 5D3 file falls apart in relation to the 1DX file, in post when you do NR and brightening, in RAW.
> 
> ...



I would be curious to see if what you've experienced with the 1D X applies to the 6D. The thing I have noticed about the 5D III is that when you DO lift exposure like that, it still has that "blotchy" chroma noise that previous Canon sensors have. However, although I have not rented one myself, the 6D samples I have seen seem to exhibit hardly any chroma noise at all...far less than the 5D III, and almost as little as the 1D X. Given that...if you shot a scene at ISO 5000, -1 1/3 EC, with a +1 EV lift in post....would it look considerably better than the same thing done with a 5D III?

If the 6D and 1D X are indicative of the future with Canon sensors, I'm happy. Not necessarily satisfied...I still want to see Canon move to a 180nm process, and would still like to see better DR on the BigMP camera. But if they have figured out how to eliminate their nasty chroma noise, that would definitely make me happy.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 21, 2013)

AG said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > the 5D3 file falls apart in relation to the 1DX file, in post when you do NR and brightening, in RAW.
> ...



Well, I use Lightroom and Camera RAW. Those are the only 2 programs I use. It's not a bad suggestion or question. It's not likely the program being used to edit. I think it is due to the superior sensor in the 1DX to the 5D3. The remaining question, as jrista stated, would be to do a 1DX/6D comparison at high ISO, underexposed. We would get insight into sensor tech, whatever they are doing.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 21, 2013)

East Wind Photography, regarding your issue with the shutter noise of the 1DX. I can certainly understand wanting it quieter. However, if that were the only issue, couldn't you simply try one of the noise reducing guards or wraps that are available? (I know it wasn't the only issue, of course...and obviously having to use a noise guard of some kind, would be more of a hassle than not using one.)

Given your choice of shooting in decent light, and your lack of a real need for anything faster than 6fps, I can certainly see why you would opt for a 5D3 over the 1DX, especially given the price difference. Which kind of gets me back to...why would you even try a 1DX at all?

It seems to me, that buying a 1DX and not using it for its intended purposes, makes about as much sense as buying a sports car, as many of the doctors and lawyers do...but only getting black or silver paint, and never going over the speed limit. They want to show that they have a car that others would envy, but they won't use it for its intended purpose, and they choose an understated color to blend into the crowd...because otherwise their hospitals and law firms would think they were trying to stray from their wives.

I could be reading a bit too much into this, and the analogy isn't all that good I guess...sorry!

Pictured here is a small bird I shot the other day center-cropped out of the original 4752 pixel width, down to 1812 pixels, and then reduced to 1050 pixels in width (I admit the reduction down to 1050 is obviously helping it). But still, this is basically only 38% of the full field of view of the original image. *Shot through a window pane, handheld at only 1/320 sec, FF equivalent 320mm*, with my lowly 5 year old crop camera, and my 70-200 f/4, at f/4 and 200mm. ISO 1600 (higher than your self-limited ISO 1000 on your much better, newer, bigger, more expensive, more masculine camera and lenses). The little bird was very cold in the wind, so I guess they puff out to stay warm. I would too! Instead I chose to stay in the warm and shoot through glass...and attempt to deal with rather terrible image softness. 

(My poor attempt at trying to sharpen notwithstanding), I'm sure the grain itself is _far below_ your taste, but it's only barely worse than the limit of my taste. (Yes I went through 3 total stages of NR, first in ACR, then at full size in PS, then again at reduced size in PS...!). _Obviously the composition itself isn't worthy of anyone wanting to display it._ I have other wildlife shots that I feel, _are_ worthy (not many are birds). I just don't have my own website yet, or enough knowledge about how to go about marketing them. At some point I'll figure it out.

My point though, is that I could get the same amount of grain at ISO 12,800, if not higher, on a 1DX. Quite possibly even ISO 16,000...So down at ISO 1000 with 1DX or 5D3, that's really like going 20mph on the interstate, in that gull gray Ferrari 458 Italia...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 21, 2013)

I know you are presenting the bird photo as a rough and ready example and not for publication. You could never get that accepted on the birdpix site for at least 2 reasons: the noise is horrible; it is also over-sharpened as most clearly seen from the tell-tale white lines around the beak. There is also a loss of fine detail from NR. I "upgraded" (or rather got a second camera) from 7D to 5D III for two reasons: the lower noise gives a higher proportion of acceptable photos that do not lose detail because of NR; and the higher number of keepers because of more reliable autofocus. Under good conditions, the 7D is just as good as the 5D III and can be even better because of its longer reach. If I got a 1DX I might be able to make a tiny incremental increase in the number of keepers over the 5D III, but I am not a pro and the difference will make very little difference to me.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 21, 2013)

Alan, thanks for your input, but read all of my post, especially the part in bold. It was shot through a window pane...hence the oversharpening. It's also a tremendous crop. Keep in mind, if this were an uncropped print, it would be at least 27x40 inches in size (although obviously the dpi of your monitor is larger than the dpi of a print...if you could somehow view it on a monitor that could have 300 ppi, then the image you're looking at is either a whole lot smaller than the one I'm looking at, or else it is being scaled up).

I wouldn't say the noise is horrible, it's just a ways above what my least acceptable noise is, for myself personally. As far as whatever bird website you're talking about, I could care less.

As I said, I presented this as an example of what the noise would be at a much higher level than this, on either a 1DX or 5D3. So ISO 1000 on either of those, would be radically low by comparison. And yet, somehow even _that_ is "too much" for some people.

Here is another shot, that is _not_ cropped, at the same ISO 1600, same camera, same 200mm, at f.6.3 since it is so much closer...hence it fills the field of view more. Still shot through a window pane. See much noise or sharpening artifacts there? The pale line on the top of this beak, is a reflection of the sky on the beak...The eye, much of the body, the feet, are all in focus.

Compositionally it's not great, the bird is not exotic, the lighting, the location, none of that is worthy of a bird snob website. But this isn't a bird snob website. The full size image has similar noise to the above shot, it's just masked due to the higher downsampling...obviously.


----------



## sanj (Feb 21, 2013)

Without getting into details, FOR ME 1dx rules totally when it comes to wildlife photography. I have spent months in Africa and India with both 3 and X and find that there is NO comparison between the two cameras when it comes to ease of shooting.

But yes, I cannot see any IQ difference between them in normal light situations.


----------



## jrista (Feb 21, 2013)

AlanF said:


> I know you are presenting the bird photo as a rough and ready example and not for publication. You could never get that accepted on the birdpix site for at least 2 reasons: the noise is horrible; it is also over-sharpened as most clearly seen from the tell-tale white lines around the beak. There is also a loss of fine detail from NR.



Actually, there is only one problem with that photo: not enough pixels on subject. It wouldn't matter if that photo was shot at ISO 3200 on a 7D...if the subject had filled the frame and did not require cropping, scaling down to web size alone would have eliminated a considerable amount of noise, and sharpened the image to an acceptable level. Less NR would have been needed to make that photo acceptable after that. I'd offer that simply moving up to a 400mm lens would have done the trick, as that would have quadrupled the size of the subject in the frame (subject size is the square of the difference in focal lengths, so (400/200)^2 = 4).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 21, 2013)

jrista,

That's exactly why I moved up to the 400 f/2.8 from the 300 f/2.8 for football.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 21, 2013)

Why would I try a 1DX in the first place? Because CPS lets me borrow equipment for free. Why wouldn't I want to try it out? CPS is an awesome service and if you qualify I encourage you to sign up.

Are your attempting to compare 1DX ISO 12800 to the 5D3 ISO 1000? If that's the case there is no comparison the 5D3 at ISO 1000 won out in my tests. 12800 has it's purpose but for feather splitting clarity and no noise it did not meet my standards of IQ. But I am pretty tight on my standards and others might accept less for their particular purpose. I agree that in some cases the 1DX would have improved noise, but for most wildlife purposes it's probably not noticeable in the end, especially after post processing each. If you are talking about shooting in the dark in bad lighting then that's another story.

Also regarding your Ferarri...It doesn't help you much if you drive it in LA all the time. You can only go as fast as the car in front of you. Those that own one will always certainly try to justify their purchase by saying that it can go from 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds and can outrun any vehicle. so what? If you can only go as fast as the car in front of you then why spend the $$$? Buy a chevy instead! 

I feel a lot of people here are trying to justify their 6K purchase. If the 1DX were not available, everyone would be praising the 5DIII as the best camera over the rest of the Canon line.  However, I am not saying that the 5DIII is better than the 1DX. I am saying that it was designed for other purposes and for most wildlife purposes the 5DIII would be more than acceptable if you could live without 12fps and I can, especially if I have to sacrifice noise levels at 12fps. If you are on an African safari riding on top of an off road vehicle then maybe you can live with the RAT TAT TAT rapid fire noise. with the 1DX I might as well have not even been in a blind as everything around me new I was there just by the noise.

Also I'll note that I am not a big fan of shooting in bad light. The 1DX may be very good at shooting in bad light but bad light is bad light and chances of getting a keeper is far less than with good light. I consider sunrise and sunset lighting good light provided there is some direct sun on the subject. In those instances I've never had an issue getting the 5D3 to perform even BIF.

Perhaps it's more forgiving with the 1DX. I cant really say as most of my shots between the two models were comparable. IQ alone I was not getting anything for that extra $3K. That is MY opinion and others have theirs and that's fine. Everyone has their expectations based on their needs.



CarlTN said:


> East Wind Photography, regarding your issue with the shutter noise of the 1DX. I can certainly understand wanting it quieter. However, if that were the only issue, couldn't you simply try one of the noise reducing guards or wraps that are available? (I know it wasn't the only issue, of course...and obviously having to use a noise guard of some kind, would be more of a hassle than not using one.)
> 
> Given your choice of shooting in decent light, and your lack of a real need for anything faster than 6fps, I can certainly see why you would opt for a 5D3 over the 1DX, especially given the price difference. Which kind of gets me back to...why would you even try a 1DX at all?
> 
> ...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 21, 2013)

And why I moved up to a 600 F/4 for wildlife!  I cant imagine using the 600 f/4 to shoot football though.  I will admit I still use the 300 2.8 to shoot soccer as it's lighter and I can move around easier than with the 400 2.8.



bdunbar79 said:


> jrista,
> 
> That's exactly why I moved up to the 400 f/2.8 from the 300 f/2.8 for football.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 21, 2013)

I didn't notice any slowdown either, I simply decided to recharge at 50% as I didn't want to risk running out in the field considering I only got two days worth of shooting in prior to that. I honestly could have just taken the 2nd battery with me.

Originally my point was that I got two days with the 1DX battery and get 2 weeks with the 5DIII and two batteries in the battery grip. Why the big difference? I dont know. There are lots of possibilities but 2 days vs two weeks is a BIG difference regardless. all of my shooting was with a 600 f4 with and without the 1.4iii extender.



mrjinxx said:


> I too have noticed no slowdown at 1DX battery percentages down to 20%. At a recent surfing event I shot 1200 frames in the day and the battery was fine.
> 
> There is also something I ca't quite put my finger on about using the 1DX ...
> 
> ...


----------



## jrista (Feb 21, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Why would I try a 1DX in the first place? Because CPS lets me borrow equipment for free. Why wouldn't I want to try it out? CPS is an awesome service and if you qualify I encourage you to sign up.



Personally, I'd LOVE to use CPS, but I don't make enough money off of my photography to do so. The requirements seem pretty stringent...you basically have to be a full-time pro photographer to qualify (at least, in the US.) 



East Wind Photography said:


> Are your attempting to compare 1DX ISO 12800 to the 5D3 ISO 1000? If that's the case there is no comparison the 5D3 at ISO 1000 won out in my tests. 12800 has it's purpose but for feather splitting clarity and no noise it did not meet my standards of IQ. But I am pretty tight on my standards and others might accept less for their particular purpose. I agree that in some cases the 1DX would have improved noise, but for most wildlife purposes it's probably not noticeable in the end, especially after post processing each. If you are talking about shooting in the dark in bad lighting then that's another story.



I would guess you did not spend much time actually shooting at ISO settings above 6400. Based on what I've seen and read in reviews, the 1D X is really mind blowing at high ISO. The 5D III may start belching out blotchy chroma noise around ISO 6400, but the 1D X still pumps out clean noise and a ton of detail through ISO 16,000 or more. 

Here is a shot from Any Rouse's blog, where he reviews the 1D X. Given how my 7D performs, I'd have called this ISO 1600. It is actually ISO 16,000...yes, sixteen thousand. Despite that, the feather detail is amazing, and the quality of the noise is superb:







Read the review to learn more about the difficult scenarios Andy photographed in. It might change your mind a bit on the 1D X, and it's unique world-class high ISO performance. Now, I do believe Andy used the best of the best lenses, so he was really packing on the pixels...but that is kind of the price you pay if you want the best of the best.



East Wind Photography said:


> I feel a lot of people here are trying to justify their 6K purchase. If the 1DX were not available, everyone would be praising the 5DIII as the best camera over the rest of the Canon line. However, I am not saying that the 5DIII is better than the 1DX. I am saying that it was designed for other purposes and for most wildlife purposes the 5DIII would be more than acceptable if you could live without 12fps and I can, especially if I have to sacrifice noise levels at 12fps. If you are on an African safari riding on top of an off road vehicle then maybe you can live with the RAT TAT TAT rapid fire noise. with the 1DX I might as well have not even been in a blind as everything around me new I was there just by the noise.
> 
> Also I'll note that I am not a big fan of shooting in bad light. The 1DX may be very good at shooting in bad light but bad light is bad light and chances of getting a keeper is far less than with good light. I consider sunrise and sunset lighting good light provided there is some direct sun on the subject. In those instances I've never had an issue getting the 5D3 to perform even BIF.



Yes, the 1D X was designed to excel in "bad" light. It was also designed to excel in pretty much every other kind of light as well. Given the quality of Andy Rouse's shots, I'd say the 1D X is just as good for wildlife and birds as it is for sports. I'd also offer the fact that Art Morris uses the 1D X almost exclusively for his bird photography, which is some of the best in the world, and the quality of his work is second to none....high detail, even at obscenely high ISO settings. 

You are right, however, that the 5D III is absolutely no slouch. If you are interested in saving money, and interested in something quieter, I totally agree that the 5D III is an ideal alternative, if not the better option in a considerable number of cases. Personally, I think I'll be getting a 5D III instead of a 1D X, at least for the foreseeable future (I'd like to pick up a 1D X when they are a bit cheaper.) I can also rent a 1D X if I think I need the features it offers, and bring along my 5D III as a backup.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 21, 2013)

Nope. If the 1DX weren't out, I'd be shooting with my 1D Mark IV. Can still push RAW files harder with 1D4 vs. 5D3. The crop factor was also amazing. For wildlife, the 1D4 is really the best, probably better than the 1DX. Yes we do justify our $6799 purchase, but not with words.


----------



## jrista (Feb 21, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Nope. If the 1DX weren't out, I'd be shooting with my 1D Mark IV. Can still push RAW files harder with 1D4 vs. 5D3. The crop factor was also amazing. For wildlife, the 1D4 is really the best, probably better than the 1DX. Yes we do justify our $6799 purchase, but not with words.



True, I'd take a 1D IV as an alternative to the 1D X as well, and would also use one ahead of the 5D III. I guess I consider the 1D IV a secondary alternative now that is no longer being manufactured, though.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 21, 2013)

There is no verification anymore of pro status. You just answer a few questions. The rest is based on a point system and depends on how much Canon stuff you own. If you have enough for Gold status you can borrow equipment. Gold is 100.00 a year and Platinum is 500.00 a year. There are other perks the biggest is a couple of free cleanings per year and SUBSTANTIAL discounts for repairs and associated parts. I had IS replaced on my 300 2.8 due to spill I took and that one repair paid for the CPS fee for the next two years. So I am taking advantage of the evaluations.

So back to the noise and the example you showed. To me that noise would not be acceptable in a 20x30 enlargement. Downscaled for the web, offset printed in a book or a calendar yes it would be acceptable as the noise would be lost in the printing or downscaling process.

I did note also that it seemed the noise patterns on the 5DIII were smaller than the 1DX I assume it's due to the 5DIII being 22MP instead of 18. I could in fact with post processing reduce most of the noise to equal that as shown on the example. As noted the 5Diii is no slouch and definitely would expect that the 1DX would have less noise and better contrast at even higher ISOs. But is that much noise really acceptable? It depends on what you want to do with the image and what you as a photographer are willing to accept in your work.




jrista said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Why would I try a 1DX in the first place? Because CPS lets me borrow equipment for free. Why wouldn't I want to try it out? CPS is an awesome service and if you qualify I encourage you to sign up.
> ...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 21, 2013)

I agree with the resolution of the 5D3. If I shoot an event and need to crop heavily portions of my shots, the 5D3 is way better. I always keep it on me everywhere I go, even when shooting with the 1DX. I did a baby event with the 5D3 and it worked out fantastic, because I did some heavy crops with a close-up of the baby's face when I could not get physically closer. The 5D3 files also clean up very nicely with NR and retain a LOT of detail.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 21, 2013)

Jrista, the noise in your cropped picture is godawful, it made me vomit...keep up the good work! 

I've tried 400mm lenses, and am considering buying one. What you said about the downsampling is just common knowledge, and hence why I posted the second shot, which was from the same time and day. 

As for buying a 400 f/2.8, it would be cheaper to hire a couple of world class wildlife photographers at my whim, and just print their best results. I'll be moving up to a used Porsche before I move up to spending $12,000 on a lens to shoot birds that photo snobs will still laugh at.

Um, East Wind Photography, since you aren't even bothering to read my post, I won't read yours either. The short answer is:

*"Are your attempting to compare 1DX ISO 12800 to the 5D3 ISO 1000?"* 

*NO, NO SIR I AM NOT DOING THAT. * I am not a fool, but thanks for thinking I am one. That's nice. :


----------



## jrista (Feb 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Jrista, the noise in your cropped picture is godawful, it made me vomit...keep up the good work!



LOL, the picture of the Owl is not mine, it was taken by Andy Rouse, a well-known and respected wildlife photographer around the world. Also, don't forget, that photo is ISO 16,000! Not 1600, but sixteen thousand. Also keep in mind that it is clean luminance noise...no chroma in sight. The photo had ZERO noise reduction (zero post-processing at all, as far as I know). With nothing but LR4, I could clean that photo up such that it looked half as noisy or less, without any detrimental softening.

It could probably be printed it at 17x20 as well, and I bet it would look great.

Here is the full image, and a 50% crop:










Admittedly, these are web size shots from a professional photographer with the best gear imaginable...but still, ISO 16000! I don't think anyone even dreamed they could get a shot like that at ISO 6400 four years ago, let alone at ISO 16000. If I downscale my 7D images to the same size (which is also 18mp), a shot at ISO 1600 MIGHT look this good...probably a bit softer. At ISO 3200 I could definitely see the noise at this size. At ISO 6400, even at web size the image would probably be unusable (assuming they were taken in the same light as Andy Rouse took his photos of this owl.) So, while the noise may seem like shit at 100% crop...it is at least as good as if not better than 1/10th the ISO on a 7D.


----------



## chauncey (Feb 22, 2013)

I've used a Ds3 for years and I wonder...were you to throw the, hopefully coming, new 7D into the equation...how would you feel then?


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 22, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> There is no verification anymore of pro status. You just answer a few questions. The rest is based on a point system and depends on how much Canon stuff you own. If you have enough for Gold status you can borrow equipment. Gold is 100.00 a year and Platinum is 500.00 a year.



CPS. This isn't entirely true, though it may be in certain areas. The requirements for CPS, and especially their verification system, varies per country (at least in terms of how they enforce it etc). I know where I am, they definitely wanted proof of pro status. I have had medical examinations that were less painful!! ;D


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 22, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > There is no verification anymore of pro status. You just answer a few questions. The rest is based on a point system and depends on how much Canon stuff you own. If you have enough for Gold status you can borrow equipment. Gold is 100.00 a year and Platinum is 500.00 a year.
> ...



Show me on the doll where CPS touched you!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 22, 2013)

There is no point speculating in this thread about a product that still is only a rumor. Therefore it has no basis for comparison. The topic was a 1DX vs 5diii comparison. Plenty of other threads discussing vaporware.

Though I will say if or when the 7DII is released I will be one of the first in line for a CPS eval. 



chauncey said:


> I've used a Ds3 for years and I wonder...were you to throw the, hopefully coming, new 7D into the equation...how would you feel then?


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 22, 2013)

RMC33, LOL !!...

Jrista, awesome owl pic...thanks for sharing it here...I want to shoot pics at least 80% that good! Wow, ISO 16,000...unbelievable! Frankly I could clean that image such that it could be printed at 24x36...with just ACR and CS5...

I want to pet that owl, and teach it not to be afraid of numbers higher than 1000...but I reckon it would prefer to peck me to death! ;D

Btw, one time I was out for a run in my front field, at night...and an owl flew right over my head...I never heard a sound...but the sight...scared the $tuff out of me...They truely make no sound at all in flight.


----------



## jrista (Feb 22, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> RMC33, LOL !!...
> 
> Jrista, awesome owl pic...thanks for sharing it here...I want to shoot pics at least 80% that good! Wow, ISO 16,000...unbelievable! Frankly I could clean that image such that it could be printed at 24x36...with just ACR and CS5...



Haha, yeah...I wish I could take photos HALF that good. A big part of it is having the gear...my 7D and 100-400 do ok...but they are definitely imposing a limit on what I can achieve in difficult scenarios.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 22, 2013)

Two shots using the 5DIII and 1DX. Both shot at ISO 1000. Both using a 600mm F4 IS with 1.4xIII extender. Both days were taken with complete overcast against a less than pleasing sky...Normally I would pass on any attempts in this condition but it makes for good comparisons in bad lighting. No post filters except 25 sharpness on both from the RAW files. 5DIII was at f/8 and 1DX was at F/10.

BE8 is the 1DX
NL7 is the 5DIII

Note that the 5DIII has smaller grain pattern than the 1DX due to pixel density. Chroma noise is about the same, I think maybe less with the 5dIII but I could be persuaded that it's the same. For those that say the 1DX has no chroma noise you are wrong. It may have less at ISO 25000 but you cant say it has none. Post with CS5 we can process out chroma noise pretty much at all ISO levels with both cameras.

Crops are 100% at 300dpi


----------



## jrista (Feb 23, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Two shots using the 5DIII and 1DX. Both shot at ISO 1000. Both using a 600mm F4 IS with 1.4xIII extender. Both days were taken with complete overcast against a less than pleasing sky...Normally I would pass on any attempts in this condition but it makes for good comparisons in bad lighting. No post filters except 25 sharpness on both from the RAW files. 5DIII was at f/8 and 1DX was at F/10.
> 
> BE8 is the 1DX
> NL7 is the 5DIII
> ...



(FYI, dpi only matters for print. On screen, you only have image dimensions in pixels and the PPI of the screen. It really wouldn't matter what dpi setting you used, on my screen it will always display at 103ppi. The average desktop screen these days has around 96ppi, most phone screens are 250-330ppi, and most tablets are 140-250ppi. People will see the image at the resolution of their device, regardless of what setting you choose when exporting. If you want everyone to see it at certain dimensions, there really isn't any way via the web, although I would imagine that if we actually could see those crops at 300ppi (my Lumia has a 336ppi resolution), they would look far less noisy than they do.)

Any chance you could post screenshots of the original histograms for each of those photos (without any post-process edits)? Given how much noise you have in those shots, and given the overall tone, I'd wager that a higher ISO setting with a greater amount of ETTR would produce better results from both cameras. I recently read some interesting info on exposure from one of my favorite bird photographers...Art Morris, who is a staunch advocate of ALWAYS exposing such that the rightmost ends of the histogram end up half way into the rightmost vertical box on the histogram display. Since I started doing that, my photos have been less noisy after post-process exposure correction (which, actually, tends to be minimal most of the time). Given what I've learned the last several months with my 7D, I would be willing to bet both the 5D III and 1D X could produce less noisy exposures for the same images you posted if you used both a higher ISO setting, and dropped the right-hand end of the histogram half way into the rightmost box.

It may not seem like "getting the exposure right in-camera", and if one was using film it would indeed be an entirely incorrect way to expose. But to maximize the potential of digital equipment, we have to think about it and use it differently than we think about and use film. I'm a staunch believer of ETTR, or expose to the right, when using modern digital cameras, and in my experience it does result in better dynamic range and noise performance out of any digital camera.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 23, 2013)

For digital I agree with jrista. I always overexpose most of my shots and then when I bring them down in post, there is a lot less noise vs. going the other way. I agree, for film, not the way to go, but it's a trick I learned and take advantage of with digital. Most of my outdoor sports photos are at least +2/3 to +1 2/3 EV.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 23, 2013)

Yes I agree. These are not the best exposed images. As I said the lighting was awful and the shot with the 5DIII it had just started sleeting. It was overexposed by about 2 stops already. The 1DX was exposed about 1 stop over. I tried to find a couple of shots that were challenging in comparison. 



jrista said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Two shots using the 5DIII and 1DX. Both shot at ISO 1000. Both using a 600mm F4 IS with 1.4xIII extender. Both days were taken with complete overcast against a less than pleasing sky...Normally I would pass on any attempts in this condition but it makes for good comparisons in bad lighting. No post filters except 25 sharpness on both from the RAW files. 5DIII was at f/8 and 1DX was at F/10.
> ...


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 23, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> For digital I agree with jrista. I always overexpose most of my shots and then when I bring them down in post, there is a lot less noise vs. going the other way. I agree, for film, not the way to go, but it's a trick I learned and take advantage of with digital. Most of my outdoor sports photos are at least +2/3 to +1 2/3 EV.



For snow sports I go -1/3 to -1 if it is a bright day. Overcast or snowing I could not agree more that over is better (under can make for some very very cool B&W)!

Certain water sports as well like kayaking benefit from your method too as the water can show up very dark and get a bit noisy.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 23, 2013)

Problem with underexposing with snow is that it then has a gray tint, which you can fix in post I agree, so no big deal. At weddings I'd always shoot +1EV for the bride's dress to make it exactly white (with proper WB of course). With RAW now though, all that can be done if you don't get it right in cam. 

EastWind, it's a tough world out there! I feel your pain with dark/light and mixed lighting scenes. I've battled that all winter. You'd think you could avoid it in outdoor sports, but not when the university schedules soccer games at 1pm in early September! You gotta just do the best you can. 

Watch your 1DX metering. Mine both are too dark relative to my 5D3 and I had to set base AE up to 5/8 instead of 0 EV! I consulted with a few other 1DX owners and they had the same result. So you do have to watch that, as even metering is all relative.


----------



## gary samples (Feb 23, 2013)

I have always had my best luck with
when shooting whites overexpose 
when shooting blacks underexpose


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 23, 2013)

Just got my CPS 1Dx yesterday! GF hid it from me and it was on the table this AM with breakfast with a full charge and my 200 f/2 attached!

Can't wait to compare the two now!


----------



## jrista (Feb 23, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Yes I agree. These are not the best exposed images. As I said the lighting was awful and the shot with the 5DIII it had just started sleeting. It was overexposed by about 2 stops already. The 1DX was exposed about 1 stop over. I tried to find a couple of shots that were challenging in comparison.



I am not sure I would use the word "overexposed", if I understand what you are getting at. If you are referring to the EC scale in the viewfinder that the camera meter updates, then I would say the meter gravely MISS-METERED those images. Keep in mind, the camera meter is rather dumb...it generally aims for an ~18% gray average tone. Given the sky in those photos, the meter was actually *underexposing*. I would actually say it probably under-exposed by two to three full stops! 

We have exposure compensation for a reason, and if we have to boost exposure with EC, then that does not mean we are over exposing....it means we are correcting the meters incorrect automatic exposure settings. I would have happily blown the sky in those images entirely, if it allowed me to get better exposure on the eagle itself. I'd have pushed exposure as far as I could, to the point where the feathers of the eagles head were in the 240 RGB range, then corrected DOWN in post. By _literally _over-exposing, then pushing exposure down in post, you actually mitigate noise. I have some examples of this with a dragonfly I photographed a while back...I accidentally overexposed the original shots by some three stops, and corrected in post. Compared to the later shots, the corrected ones that were overexposed had almost zero visible noise, while one that was "correctly" exposed in camera had a plenty of visible noise. I'll see if I can dig those up.

Noise is not actually caused by high ISO...it is caused by too little light. The ISO setting simply changes the readout whitepoint, which intrinsically limits the maximum exposure level. If you push to ISO 1000, but then expose such that your whites are below an RGB value of 200...you are simply exacerbating the problem of not having enough light. If you cannot use a longer shutter speed, then the best way to maximize exposure is to increase ISO. It doesn't get any more light down the lens, but it reads out the exposure you have in the least-noisy way. Higher in-camera ISO will almost always trump post-process exposure _push._ Pushing a noisy exposure in post just makes the noise more apparent. Better to increase ISO, maximize the exposure in-camera (and even blow the sky such that it is entirely white when it is gray and overcast, since the sky isn't the subject and doesn't really matter), then _pull_ the exposure down in post. You'll increase your signal to noise ratio, which is preserved with the post-process pull.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 23, 2013)

LOL! The one I had ended in serial 508.



RMC33 said:


> Just got my CPS 1Dx yesterday! GF hid it from me and it was on the table this AM with breakfast with a full charge and my 200 f/2 attached!
> 
> Can't wait to compare the two now!


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 23, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> LOL! The one I had ended in serial 508.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bummer 338 here. I have to say, I love the build quality already. The manual is a bit daunting but there are a lot of Cfn's I like that the 5d3 Lacks. Glad I have a bunch of time off in the next two weeks to shoot.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 23, 2013)

Interesting on the 1DX exposure adjustment. I wonder if it's due to the focusing screen they selected for them? One would think they would be calibrated based on a Canon standard.

On the samples I posted, I whole heartedly admit that the exposures were not the best. The point I was trying to make between the two shots is 1) the finer noise/grain patterns on the 5DIII and 2) the amount of Chroma noise. Yes more exposure would push the chroma on both shots below the noise floor but at least at ISO 1000 it shows they're either equal or (my opinion) the 5DIII actually shows very slightly less under similar conditions. Either way chroma is a non issue with the excellent post filters available today and at higher ISO's the 1DX would likely win in the chroma dept when comparing raw images and also the "grain" patterns at very high ISO's. Maybe not so much difference up to around 3200.



bdunbar79 said:


> Problem with underexposing with snow is that it then has a gray tint, which you can fix in post I agree, so no big deal. At weddings I'd always shoot +1EV for the bride's dress to make it exactly white (with proper WB of course). With RAW now though, all that can be done if you don't get it right in cam.
> 
> EastWind, it's a tough world out there! I feel your pain with dark/light and mixed lighting scenes. I've battled that all winter. You'd think you could avoid it in outdoor sports, but not when the university schedules soccer games at 1pm in early September! You gotta just do the best you can.
> 
> Watch your 1DX metering. Mine both are too dark relative to my 5D3 and I had to set base AE up to 5/8 instead of 0 EV! I consulted with a few other 1DX owners and they had the same result. So you do have to watch that, as even metering is all relative.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 23, 2013)

I don't know what it is. But set the 5D3 to 1/200s, f/3.2, ISO 1600, and then I set both of my 1DX's to the same settings, same lens, same tripod, and shot a target, and the 1DX images were darker. I moved the 1DX ISO up to 2000 and 2500 and the 2000 was still a tad dark and the 2500 was brighter. I played around with AE and set it at 3/8-5/8 and it seems to match up now to the settings I'm normally used to from previous cameras. I consulted many other 1DX owners who did the same thing. Again, I don't know what it is. One thing I did notice is that with the 5D3 you can have the EV scale at 0, and highlights still get blown. SAME situation and have EV at 0 with a 1DX, and none of the highlights are blown, ever. It's not aesthetically pleasing but I'm thinking Canon knows this and it is intentional, and has to do with the metering system accuracy over the 5D3. It's only a good thing.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 23, 2013)

Wondering of in that instance the highlights getting blown out are due to either the 5DIII overexposing based on AE +-0 or that the 1DX is underexposing? Obviously the 1DX is better at capturing the highlight detail but it is interesting and perhaps partially accounts for some of the loss. I'm sure Canon has a reasonable explanation. I didn't mess with it on the 1DX but I think I saw an AE micro adjust setting in the firmware. Just as you can adjust the AFMA you can tweak the metering. Is that where you set the +5/8?



bdunbar79 said:


> I don't know what it is. But set the 5D3 to 1/200s, f/3.2, ISO 1600, and then I set both of my 1DX's to the same settings, same lens, same tripod, and shot a target, and the 1DX images were darker. I moved the 1DX ISO up to 2000 and 2500 and the 2000 was still a tad dark and the 2500 was brighter. I played around with AE and set it at 3/8-5/8 and it seems to match up now to the settings I'm normally used to from previous cameras. I consulted many other 1DX owners who did the same thing. Again, I don't know what it is. One thing I did notice is that with the 5D3 you can have the EV scale at 0, and highlights still get blown. SAME situation and have EV at 0 with a 1DX, and none of the highlights are blown, ever. It's not aesthetically pleasing but I'm thinking Canon knows this and it is intentional, and has to do with the metering system accuracy over the 5D3. It's only a good thing.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 23, 2013)

Well, it's not just relative to the 5D3, it's all cameras other than the 1DX. Did the same thing with the 1D4. I'm not convinced that the 1DX isn't underexposing relative to 0EV, or the 5D3 is relative to some other value of EV than 0. It's my gut feeling that the 1DX slightly underexposes at lower ISO, and then actually slightly overexposes at high ISO. I ran a series of images at a night soccer game once and once the 1DX crossed from ISO 6400, to 8000, the image was much brighter overall than 1/3 stop. So it is something with the sensor and/or metering system that they did to reach cleaner, higher ISO's, and I don't know what it is exactly.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 23, 2013)

Well it's good to know CPS has more than one to loan out! 

Please post some caparisons when you get a chance, particularly if you can take some in the snow. Lots of highlights and would be good comparison of the 5DIII and 1DX at reproducing such. We dont get a lot of snow here but Im planning a polar bear trip and would be nice to see if the 1DX does any better when everything is white except the eyes! 



RMC33 said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > LOL! The one I had ended in serial 508.
> ...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 23, 2013)

I agree. When I said overexpose by 1 stop I meant over what the metering was telling me. Shooting into the sky will never give you an accurate metering unless you are shooting clouds and even then you might want to shoot under the metering value.

But I do agree that the histogram is the way to go if you have the time to make that comparison. Often with BIF images you cant predict where the bird will be and checking a histogram prior to it is impossible. You can be in the ball park though but maybe not an ideal setting. Experience usually will get you there as well.



jrista said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I agree. These are not the best exposed images. As I said the lighting was awful and the shot with the 5DIII it had just started sleeting. It was overexposed by about 2 stops already. The 1DX was exposed about 1 stop over. I tried to find a couple of shots that were challenging in comparison.
> ...


----------



## garyknrd (Feb 24, 2013)

Thank's allot for the comparison. Well thought out and very informative. You mentioned shutter noise. I just got a Mark IV and it is the first time I can remember when a bird actually heard the noise and flew. It is very noisy also. My friend has a 5D III and it is so quiet compared to mine.
www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 24, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Well it's good to know CPS has more than one to loan out!
> 
> Please post some caparisons when you get a chance, particularly if you can take some in the snow. Lots of highlights and would be good comparison of the 5DIII and 1DX at reproducing such. We dont get a lot of snow here but Im planning a polar bear trip and would be nice to see if the 1DX does any better when everything is white except the eyes!
> 
> ...



My plan is tomorrow to head up to Lake Tahoe and do a few landscape pannos. Should be a good side by side as there is a lot of snow and black igneous rock to test the highs and lows (going to shoot regular, 3 and 5 shot HDR's). Going to use my 200 f/2, 50 f/1.4 and 8-15 Fish for most of my shooting. I may bust out my rental 24 TS-E too and do a few buildings. My biggest concern is going to be sports, and I will be shooting a skier/snowboarder x(cross) event on Thursday March 28. It is a late day to night event so that should push a few extremes. I am a bit worried loosing the crop factor and wish I had a 1DIV to toss into the mix but I didn't feel like spending the money on a rental. All of the testing aside from the sports event will be side by side 1Dx - 5dIII.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 24, 2013)

Yes and put the 5DIII into Silent drive mode (3 fps only though) and you can hardly hear it. Clearly that mode was designed for weddings but it's scary silent and useful when you dont need 6 fps.



garyknrd said:


> Thank's allot for the comparison. Well thought out and very informative. You mentioned shutter noise. I just got a Mark IV and it is the first time I can remember when a bird actually heard the noise and flew. It is very noisy also. My friend has a 5D III and it is so quiet compared to mine.
> www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos


----------



## AWSPhotography (Feb 24, 2013)

Morning folks, 1st post here so forgive me if I seems a little noob ish, 

I'm currently saving for my 1dx (I have a very supportive wife and no kids) after just getting my 600 mk1 and I currently use a 5d mk2. Right so that's where I'm currently coming from just so that ppl know.

I read this thread with great interest as the 1dx is going to be a major spend for me, just like the 600 was before it.

I shoot wildlife exclusively so this thread was even more important to read.
As a wildlife photographer I can tell you that I miss 12fps (as currently I can only go 3) I miss the high iso noise handling (1600 is as far as I can acceptably push it on the mk2) and with the locations I am going to I will need the weather sealing that the 5d doesn't have.

Also as a wildlife photographer my 1st concern is the welfare of the wildlife itself, so you say that the 12fps is so loud it scares of the subject? Then my friend you are WAY too close! I have had the use of a 1dmk 4 (as the kingfisher photographs on my site will a testify ) and was within 15mtrs of it and it didn't scare off. But that's my personal opinion and shouldn't be taken as criticism in any way. Is there some kind of wrap you could put on the camera (a bit like camera armour) that would deaden the sound?

As has already been posted here, Andy rouse, a world wide acclaimed wildlife photographer tested and subsequently bought 2 dx's, and as its his living he's gambling with I'm sure he know what he's doing. Please the importantance in this here is that he used to exclusively shoot with Nikon. He found the dx so good he bought into the system to use it. Why didn't he look at the 5d3? Because it doesn't have the weather sealing needed, the fps (btw he never mentioned how loud it was or that he had scared off any subjects) or the extreme high iso noise handling that the dx.

I have looked at your site and you have some wonderful images (especially of the foxes  ) but you're not exclusively a wildlife photographer, and I doubt very much that you will be going to to the jungle, desert or arctic/Antarctic or locations that will really push the camera to its limits just to photograph a subject which lives there.

I'm pleased for you that the 5d3 works for you, the mk2 that I have is a great all round camera and I can only imagine how much better the mk3 is above that.

But for me, as I am going to the desert, jungles, arctic and Antarctic .... I'll continue to save and stick with my idea of getting a dx

Oh and as a side note ....don't use an iPad to make long posts as I just have


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 24, 2013)

First off welcome to the CR forum. Lots of helpful and not so helpful people here but none the less a very useful forum. I'm actually using an iPod right now so I'm not going to leave a long post.

For some/most you have to get close to your subject or you are cropping way too much. The 1dX noise wise would be fine if you shoot from a truck or noisy public area. But from a blind or edge of a lake it's way too loud.

1dx is way better sealed and seems to offer better high ISO iq and I'm talking above ISO 3200. Below that and the 5d3 is comparable. In fact the noise patterns are smaller on the 5d3 due to the higher pixel density.

Don't know where you live but if you can try to rent or eval the 1dx before you buy I would recommend that since its a large purchase. The 1dx will be light years better than the 5d2. 



AWSPhotography said:


> Morning folks, 1st post here so forgive me if I seems a little noob ish,
> 
> I'm currently saving for my 1dx (I have a very supportive wife and no kids) after just getting my 600 mk1 and I currently use a 5d mk2. Right so that's where I'm currently coming from just so that ppl know.
> 
> ...


----------



## AWSPhotography (Feb 24, 2013)

Thank you for the reply.

Given what has been discussed in this thread I think your suggestion of hiring to eval the dx is now a must for me and will be looking to do just that 

I live in the uk (awsphotography.co.uk) so hiring shouldn't be a problem.

Once again ty for the welcome


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 24, 2013)

For those reading who are new to DSLRs or dont quite understand what jrista is talking about, here is a link to a good article that explains why you should expose right and how to use the histogram to maximize S/N ratio.

He points out that by exposing to reduce s/n this way also effectively reduces your ISO. For instances where you need fast shutter speeds it may not be worth sacrificing shutter speed to reduce the recorded noise.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml




jrista said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I agree. These are not the best exposed images. As I said the lighting was awful and the shot with the 5DIII it had just started sleeting. It was overexposed by about 2 stops already. The 1DX was exposed about 1 stop over. I tried to find a couple of shots that were challenging in comparison.
> ...


----------



## jrista (Feb 24, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> For those reading who are new to DSLRs or dont quite understand what jrista is talking about, here is a link to a good article that explains why you should expose right and how to use the histogram to maximize S/N ratio.
> 
> He points out that by exposing to reduce s/n this way also effectively reduces your ISO. For instances where you need fast shutter speeds it may not be worth sacrificing shutter speed to reduce the recorded noise.
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml



Here are a couple more links, from Art Morris' blog:

Learning to Think Like a Pro In The Field
Exposure Confusion and Misconceptions Clarified

Intriguingly enough, the notion of using manual and metering off the sky (or any generally even-toned subject) and deriving EC from that actually works quite well. At least, for subjects that have white in them. (I am still having trouble with dark subjects in manual, as I previously used to use Av pretty exclusively.)


----------



## Skulker (Feb 27, 2013)

I have a 1dx and a 5D3 so I don't have an angle on this.

They are both great cameras and if you can take good shots with one you will be able to with the other. If I had to choose just one for wildlife it would be the 1Dx, no question or hesitation.

For me the 5D3 has two advantages. First its lighter to carry round so for a days walking about its easier to carry. Secondly the shutter is noticeable quieter, but for me this is no great advantage as I don't find the noise of the shutter a problem even up close. The extra mega pixels is not significant for me so I don't count it as an advantage.

For everything else going that matters the 1Dx is significantly better or has the edge. I'm not going into details or this post will miss my point.

You may or may not find the advantages worth the money. But for me it is definitely worth the cost of the 1Dx. That said I still use the 5D3 for wildlife. I will often take just the 5D3 but if I'm after the best shot I can get for wildlife it will be the 1Dx, probable with the other interested bag with a different length lens on ready.

If you have choose between these cameras you are very lucky as either one will do fine.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2013)

Skulker said:


> If you have choose between these cameras you are very lucky as either one will do fine.



Well said, and there are an awful lot of lucky people on here, it seems to me!


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 28, 2013)

So,

I love the 1Dx (for sports) compared to both my 5d3 and old (very dead) 7D. 12 FPS is very useful (I keep the High and low at 12/8 since the 5d3 fills 6/3 Reason: Faster movement requires higher FPS to get the shot while slower more fluid movement can be caught with lower FPS) for ANY type of transitional motion from say a jump to a rail etc. or a 900 deg + rotation. Build and operation are amazing, never used a 1 series before and it was all mostly intuitive other then a few of the C fn. I had to read up on and test to get a full understanding. I love the old style on off switch for the grip. Memo recording is super cool and very useful, wish it could be mapped to the AF ON button so I could take a memo while shooting. Built in VF curtain is nice (have not used yet but plan on it). 


I will be going this weekend on a nature walk (packing: 5d3, 1Dx, 400 f/2.8 II, 1.4 TC and 70-200 II + Versa 33 tripod with a PG-02 FG) with a friend who is a trail guide in the area. Plan on doing a bit of birding and wildlife capture but we are supposed to get some serious snow this weekend so... we shall see. Ill post some images as I get to them.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2013)

Wtg RMC33!! Will you really expose your 400 to heavy snow, or do you have a bag or blanket for it?


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Wtg RMC33!! Will you really expose your 400 to heavy snow, or do you have a bag or blanket for it?



I usually just toss my ski jacket over the whole thing as I hate shooting encumbered. Snow generaly just piles up due to the white coating on the lens not heating up. I have had days where my 7D would be warm to the touch (32 F sunny) but the lens was same as ambient and as such no melt factor. The Nikon shooter I know uses a lens cover because even on freezing days the sun can melt wind blown snow on the big black lenses.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Wtg RMC33!! Will you really expose your 400 to heavy snow, or do you have a bag or blanket for it?
> ...



Excellent point, I hadn't even thought of the snow melt factor, I was just thinking of a heavy amount trying to cram its way into the cracks, especially at the camera mount.


----------



## AWSPhotography (Mar 1, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > If you have choose between these cameras you are very lucky as either one will do fine.
> ...



Not luck here been busting my bottom for 8 months (still got 3 to go) working 6 day weeks to get this camera.... Which is why it's so important to get it right


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 2, 2013)

AWSPhotography said:


> Not luck here been busting my bottom for 8 months (still got 3 to go) working 6 day weeks to get this camera.... Which is why it's so important to get it right



Whatever you want to call it. Nobody said hard work wasn't involved.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 2, 2013)

(OP) An example of the 5DIII at ISO 1600.


----------



## jrista (Mar 2, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> (OP) An example of the 5DIII at ISO 1600.



OOH, Very nice! Congrats on a great photo! Any chance you could post a small crop at 100%? I'm curious what the noise level is in the background.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 2, 2013)

Another example taken at ISO 6400. I should add that these are not from RAW but processed in Photoshop using normal workflows.


----------



## jrista (Mar 2, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Another example taken at ISO 6400. I should add that these are not from RAW but processed in Photoshop using normal workflows.



Wow, looks awesome for being ISO 6400. I think I'm sold on the 5D III. I'll have to pick one of them up this year, assuming I can scrounge up the money.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 2, 2013)

Let me work some voodoo



jrista said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > (OP) An example of the 5DIII at ISO 1600.
> ...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 2, 2013)

Here are the two crops. The ISO 6400 one could have been exposed more to the right but things were happening fast and well..... The 1600 one the head was already bleeding past the edge but it worked. Only a small highlight was blown out.

Overall I'm very happy with the result...though the 6400 one could have been better.



jrista said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Another example taken at ISO 6400. I should add that these are not from RAW but processed in Photoshop using normal workflows.
> ...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 2, 2013)

The 6400 shot was 1/2000 f/8 +3 over the meter in full overcast
The 1600 shot was 1/1000 f/9 +1 over meter in direct sun


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 2, 2013)

(OP) Here is another one but at ISO1000. 1/2500 F8 +1 over meter in full evening sun.

Going to be windy this weekend. I'd like to push the ISO up beyond 6400 and see how it handles things. However it's easy to overexpose the head on bald eagles. Actually some overcast is better in that sense as you get better exposure.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 2, 2013)

By the time you are ready you might have a 7DII available and then you are back to the drawing board on the decision making process. 



AWSPhotography said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Skulker said:
> ...


----------



## Skulker (Mar 2, 2013)

AWSPhotography said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Skulker said:
> ...



If you have to work 6 days a week for 11 months "to get this camera" my suggestion would be go for the 5D3. I suspect the extra cost of the 1Dx will not be worth the effort for you. Although I'm not sure if you mean the 1Dx or the 5D3 when you say "this camera". Either way I suggest go with the cheaper option and spend the free time taking photos.


----------



## AWSPhotography (Mar 2, 2013)

Skulker said:


> AWSPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



argg but im sooo close now  but to be fair the places im looking at going (which means at some point i will go) i think i would't be as confident with the 5d3's weather sealing.
@eastwind (about the 7dII) lol now now stop throwing ideas into my head, i already have my 600mm (which also took ages to work for) so the crop factor on the 7dII is VERY appealing... but to be honest i'm thinking of the 1dx and see how the 7dII pans out in reviews and what you lot here think of it before i consider it as a 2nd body., and btw wonderful baldy shots.

and can anyone here explain why canon in uk is sooooo bloody expensive compared to the rest of the world?


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 2, 2013)

AWSPhotography - well if you don't mind a grey-import then UK is not more expensive....

I figure the chances of Pro Canon equipment going wrong within warranty is pretty unlikely, plus all their equipment is made in a handful of locations in Asia. If you want full warranty, fair enough. I've bought three 2nd hand 1D series bodies without issues, so I figure grey import is less risk.

I've used procamera in the uk (no affiliation), and their price compares well to Adorama / B&H / Amazon.

Like you I am considering a 1Dx or MK III, but really want to wait and see if the new bodies have (even) better noise handling (I do nature, travel & landscapes), so need a mix of capabilities....


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 2, 2013)

Stu_bert said:


> AWSPhotography - well if you don't mind a grey-import then UK is not more expensive....
> 
> I figure the chances of Pro Canon equipment going wrong within warranty is pretty unlikely, plus all their equipment is made in a handful of locations in Asia. If you want full warranty, fair enough. I've bought three 2nd hand 1D series bodies without issues, so I figure grey import is less risk.
> 
> ...



Unless the new body replaces the 1DX, it's not going to have better noise handling. No chance, zero. And of course if it did replace the 1DX, the price.


----------



## jrista (Mar 2, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > AWSPhotography - well if you don't mind a grey-import then UK is not more expensive....
> ...



They certainly could have better noise handling at a low frame rate. FF High ISO IQ is certainly one of the attractions of the 1D X, but frame rate, AF system, and metering system are really more important ones, IMO. I could easily see a megapixel monster getting better IQ, both at high and low ISO along with a DR boost, at a much lower frame rate with a more basic AF system (although not as basic as the 6D).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 2, 2013)

jrista said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Stu_bert said:
> ...



Right. But not a 7D Mark II. It would be a very high-end FF camera to do that.


----------



## jrista (Mar 3, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I don't believe that _must _be the case. Canon has repeatedly said that they will introduce some "revolutionary" new technology with the 7D II. The 7D line is an inferior line to the 1D X for a multitude of reasons. If the 7D II gets a better sensor, that doesn't invalidate the 1D X. For one, even if Canon manages to increase Q.E. with either a BSI sensor, or maybe a sensor with LighPipe tech, the smaller pixel size will intrinsically limit full well capacity. The 1D X has an FWC of over 90K, while the 7D has 20K. Even if they managed to double the Q.E. of the 7D, and achieve ~40k FWC, the 1D X will still be a superior high ISO sensor, will still have a faster frame rate, will still have a superior AF system, will still have the superior build and greater battery capacity.

Sensor, as I've said in the past, is not the sole factor in determining the quality of a *camera*. It is one of many, and I would put frame rate as well as AF system ahead of sensor as the primary factors that determine IQ in most cases, except in the few cases where your subject is static (i.e. landscapes.)


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 3, 2013)

One of the biggest issues I see with a large mp crop sensor is the diffraction limitations. Might not be able to get past f5.6 without some loss of sharpness. I'm cautiously optimistic though. Even if they kept it at 18mp if they improved on noise and dr then it would be a plus.



jrista said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


----------



## jrista (Mar 3, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> One of the biggest issues I see with a large mp crop sensor is the diffraction limitations. Might not be able to get past f5.6 without some loss of sharpness. I'm cautiously optimistic though. Even if they kept it at 18mp if they improved on noise and dr then it would be a plus.



A higher density sensor won't ever be less sharp than a lower density sensor, though. Image resolution and sharpness are the result of all components of an imaging system. A higher resolution sensor, even in a diffraction-limited context, simply allows you to approach the ideal resolution of the lens. See this thread:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13249.0

The only real issue with a higher density sensor is that it becomes more sensitive to camera shake. With the new 4-stop IS, Mode 3 for IS (which only activates it when the shutter is actually pressed), and the use of sturdy tripods, and when necessary/possible the use of a remote shutter release and mirror lockup, can greatly diminish the effects of camera shake on blur. 

Diffraction, however, should never be the cause of less-sharp images at a higher resolution. If you do experience more softness with a higher resolution sensor, then it is probably the lens that is insufficient and causing blur, not the sensor. (Although, even then, given that system resolution is the RMS of the resolutions of each component in the system, a soft lens on a higher resolution sensor should still produce better results than a lower resolution sensor.)


----------



## jrista (Mar 3, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Here are the two crops. The ISO 6400 one could have been exposed more to the right but things were happening fast and well..... The 1600 one the head was already bleeding past the edge but it worked. Only a small highlight was blown out.
> 
> Overall I'm very happy with the result...though the 6400 one could have been better.



Well, those results, at a pixel level, are much better than the 7D. On a normalized basis the 7D is probably as good as the ISO 1600 result, but the ISO 6400 is just amazing. Thanks for the crops!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 5, 2013)

Oh yeah I dont even use the 7D any more. My images are so much better with the 5DIII even when I crop to make up the APC-C size loss. The 7D is just a backup now.



jrista said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Here are the two crops. The ISO 6400 one could have been exposed more to the right but things were happening fast and well..... The 1600 one the head was already bleeding past the edge but it worked. Only a small highlight was blown out.
> ...


----------



## garyknrd (Mar 7, 2013)

How does it stack up to the 1D mark IV? I picked up a mark IV and was hoping the reduced pixel density would not be noticeable but it is very noticeable. When the AF hits on the 7D it smokes the IV. Or at least mine does. As far as detail goes. I only shoot birds and only have had the 7D and mark IV.
I was going to try the 5D III but with the poor performance in resolving of the IV I am a little hesitant.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 7, 2013)

I have not tried the 1DIV but I can say the 5DIII smokes the 7D even losing the 1.6 crop factor, it still is better than the 7D both in resolution and in lower noise...not to mention the vastly improved AF capabilities.



garyknrd said:


> How does it stack up to the 1D mark IV? I picked up a mark IV and was hoping the reduced pixel density would not be noticeable but it is very noticeable. When the AF hits on the 7D it smokes the IV. Or at least mine does. As far as detail goes. I only shoot birds and only have had the 7D and mark IV.
> I was going to try the 5D III but with the poor performance in resolving of the IV I am a little hesitant.


----------



## Northstar (Mar 15, 2013)

Having both cameras for some time now I would agree with something bdunbar wrote earlier in this post.....the 1dx shadow recovery is noticeably better than the 5d3 at higher ISO's.....and the AF system is better for catching action/movement... no doubt about it. 

The extra mp's of the 5d3 do come in handy in good light if your subject isn't moving much, and if that is the only type of wildlife photography that you're doing then yes, the 5d3 would be better. 

But...I've seen a million shots of a bald eagle or bear or wolf...etc, just sitting still in good light...cropped in close. My point is that those shots get pretty boring pretty fast.....BUT:

1. If you saw two bald eagles fighting in mid air (as Gary samples has shown in the 1dx sample images section) you would want the speed of the 1dx

2. If you saw any big cat trying to capture prey...you would want the 1dx 

3. If you saw a mother bear caring for her new cub in the shadows of a forest....you would want the 1dx.

4. If you saw two alpha timberwolves fighting for control of the pack at sunset...you would want the 1dx.

For me, these are the great wildlife photos/moments that I would want to capture because they are so much more interesting and special.....and the 1dx simply does it better.


----------



## NWPhil (Mar 18, 2013)

wonder if you have a bad battery.
I got a loaner from CPS, and took it along a snowshoeing hike yesterday. I had it powered on the whole time, exposed to single digit temperatures - wind chill driven, and powdery snow. The is on the mounted 24-105 was on too.
Took 100 shots or so, and even after checking all the shots later in the comfort of a local bar, the charge was still above 85%
I find the grip ergonomics better than the 1dsmk3 or the 5Dmk2 with grip
Yes, the shutter it's a loud and solid clunk - and 12 fps scares nearby P&S shooters


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 18, 2013)

It's possible. It was a loaner. Prior to getting the eval 1dx, I used a 5DIII. With the grip and two batteries it yields 3600mAH at 7.2V. LP-E4N for the 1DX is 2450mAH at 11.1V. Also considering that the 1DX does drive the AF systems faster and likely drains the battery faster than on a 5DIII, I did get used to shooting 1000+ shots before the battery would get anywhere near 50%(about 1 to 2 weeks of shooting +chimping).

Not saying the 1DX has a bad battery life but it does only accept one at a time (it's easy enough to just swap batteries when you need to) not that it even needs to be compared. Having the two batts in the 5DIII grip is just a convenience more than a practicality. 



NWPhil said:


> wonder if you have a bad battery.
> I got a loaner from CPS, and took it along a snowshoeing hike yesterday. I had it powered on the whole time, exposed to single digit temperatures - wind chill driven, and powdery snow. The is on the mounted 24-105 was on too.
> Took 100 shots or so, and even after checking all the shots later in the comfort of a local bar, the charge was still above 85%
> I find the grip ergonomics better than the 1dsmk3 or the 5Dmk2 with grip
> Yes, the shutter it's a loud and solid clunk - and 12 fps scares nearby P&S shooters


----------



## acoll123 (Mar 18, 2013)

NWPhil said:


> wonder if you have a bad battery.
> I got a loaner from CPS, and took it along a snowshoeing hike yesterday. I had it powered on the whole time, exposed to single digit temperatures - wind chill driven, and powdery snow. The is on the mounted 24-105 was on too.
> Took 100 shots or so, and even after checking all the shots later in the comfort of a local bar, the charge was still above 85%
> I find the grip ergonomics better than the 1dsmk3 or the 5Dmk2 with grip
> Yes, the shutter it's a loud and solid clunk - and 12 fps scares nearby P&S shooters


Ha Ha - a few weeks ago I had a referee jump for cover when I first started firing the 1DX off behind him at a basketball game - he said he thought it was gunfire . . . glad he wasn't packing . . .


----------



## Nazareth (Oct 1, 2013)

old post I know, just wanted to give my experience with the 1DX and battery drain, and to ask if this is normal or not-

I shjoot landscape, on tripod, with mirror lockup enabled, and self timer set to 10 seconds to ensure tripod settles compeltely before shot is taken. I shoot around 50 to say like 100 or so shots per day at most- and about 1/2 of them with hte lcd view activated because camera is at wierd angle and I can't see through hte viewfinder for some shots- I get about 2 day's worth of shootign htis way before batteries need recharging- This just seems like an aweful quick drain to me- with my 7D camera, it seems like I'd get several days out of a charge and shooting the same way- and those batteries in the 7D are liek 2 years older with lots more time and many more charges on them than my 1DX batteries (Note, in addition to the tripod shots durign htese two days time, I do take aroudn 100 or so more handheld shots without the timer, and mirror lockup- of various subjects where tripod isn't needed- but htis shoudl contribute terribly so to the battery drain)

I generally shoot for abotu 2 hours a day, moving from scene to scene, turnign off the LCD live view between shots, although sometimes I forget, but it quickly turns itself off after a minute or so-, and liek I said, I'm not taking tons of photos- and it just seems like I should be gettign quite a bit more shots between charges? Or is this about on par with other folk's experiences with htese batteries?


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 1, 2013)

Northstar said:


> Having both cameras for some time now I would agree with something bdunbar wrote earlier in this post.....the 1dx shadow recovery is noticeably better than the 5d3 at higher ISO's.....and the AF system is better for catching action/movement... no doubt about it.
> 
> The extra mp's of the 5d3 do come in handy in good light if your subject isn't moving much, and if that is the only type of wildlife photography that you're doing then yes, the 5d3 would be better.
> 
> ...



Interesting thoughts. However, the 1DX might not be able to achieve autofocus in very low light. Depends on the situation. The 1DX is no doubt the best autofocusing camera in the world, overall. Makes me wonder what the future holds.


----------



## MarkyB (Oct 1, 2013)

I have owned my 5d iii for over a year now. Before that I had two cameras, a 1D mk iii and a 5d mk ii

I am a serious amateur rather than a professional so my requirements are less demanding than others on this forum

My 1D iii was so far in advance of my 5D ii for wildlife that it was unreal. I had a later body of the 1D so never had the AF issues. I was so in love with the 1D, that I rented a 1 Dx body and took it to a falconry display for a workout.

My view is this, it is a better camera than the 5D iii period. For air displays and birds the 12 fps I actually find really useful. I don't notice an increase in AF speed, but I perceive better tracking performance on bif when I have got an initial lock, probably because the Dx dedicates a separate processor to AF and also tracks colour. Yes, it's louder, but that doesn't cause a problem for my use. High ISO is awesome when the files are exposed correctly, a bit better than the 5D.

Almost bought it, but changed my mind when I realised what I could have instead. I was using the 70-200mm mk ii lens with 1.4 and 2.0 extenders. I decided to invest in the 300mm f2.8 mk ii instead of the 1Dx. The Dx is awesome but the 5D gives me 90% of the more expensive camera, whereas the 300mm opens up a new world of possibilities.

You guys who can afford both the top end bodies and the super teles should go with the Dx, if you can only afford either the lens or to upgrade your body from the 5D iii, well it ended up being a no brainer for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Interesting thoughts. *However, the 1DX might not be able to achieve autofocus in very low light. Depends on the situation.* The 1DX is no doubt the best autofocusing camera in the world, overall. Makes me wonder what the future holds.



I notice you carefully _not_ pointing out that the 6D can AF down to -3 EV, whereas the the 1D X can only manage to AF down to -2 EV. Of course, -2 EV is like shooting in the light of the full moon, which is far, far dimmer than the sunset light or forest shadows that were being discussed. I've never had an issue with my 1D X being unable to lock on in the light I have available, even very dim indoor lighting where I can barely see my kids, much less when I'm shooting birds/wildlife. 

We'll probably see more AF sensors with -3 EV (or lower) sensitivity in the future - that's more about the amplification circuitry rather than the sensor line layout. 



Nazareth said:


> old post I know, just wanted to give my experience with the 1DX and battery drain, and to ask if this is normal or not-
> 
> I generally shoot for abotu 2 hours a day, moving from scene to scene, turnign off the LCD live view between shots, although sometimes I forget, but it quickly turns itself off after a minute or so-, and liek I said, I'm not taking tons of photos- and it just seems like I should be gettign quite a bit more shots between charges? Or is this about on par with other folk's experiences with htese batteries?



Sounds like your battery is draining faster than it should, or at least faster than mine seem to - with usage as you describe, I'd expect several days on a fully charged battery. Just to confirm, you're using the LP-E4N battery charged in an LC-E4N charger? The -N batteries are outwardly the same as the older ones, and can be charged in the old 1-series battery charger...but doing so, they will not be fully charged even when they appear to be based on the LED lights on the charger.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 1, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Having both cameras for some time now I would agree with something bdunbar wrote earlier in this post.....the 1dx shadow recovery is noticeably better than the 5d3 at higher ISO's.....and the AF system is better for catching action/movement... no doubt about it.
> ...



Non issue compared to the 4 points Northstar made.

A real world experience for me, there are no Eagles where I live but I went on a trip years back and had the chance to take some photos of Eagles.
A baby eagle, its two parents sitting on a perch 50 yards away. I had a 500mm with a 5D II. An Osprey flies by, one eagle takes off directly at the Osprey, the second circles the tree line behind it and for about a minute I watch a beautiful fight. 
Of course afterwards I am thinking about what I missed. The 5D II AF system did ok. Slow frame rate cost some of the action but most of all the buffer filled and wouldn't recharge fast enough.

I switched to the 7D, then to a 1D IV because of this one event. As one who enjoys wildlife photography, when the one chance that only presents itself once in your life time you do not want to miss it.


----------



## Vern (Oct 1, 2013)

Apologies for not reading all the prior posts, but just incase this hasn't come up before - I have both bodies and use the 1Dx for BIF but prefer the 5DMKIII for working from a blind for mammal photography because the silent shutter setting, is in fact, pretty quiet. The 1Dx silent mode is much too loud for skittish game if they are close and the woods are quiet. If the 1Dx shutter was as silent, I would use if always for the other advantages.


----------



## canon1dxman (Oct 1, 2013)

I changed from 1D III to a 7D when it first came out as I was frustrated with so many out of focus shots, despite 2 returns to CPS. 7D replacement was impressive but noise at highish ISO was a problem sometimes so I took the plunge, buying a 1DX in Dec 2012. 10,000 plus shots later and I never get tired of using it. Simply astonishing body. 

As someone mentioned, the quiet mode could be better ( I once startled a spectator at an event.....good job he didn't hear the machine gun mode!) but overall, just an amazing piece of kit. I will never forget "shooting" jumping Red Squirrels and Osprey fishing in the Highlands a few months ago. 

Yes, it's expensive, way more than I wanted to spend, but after a year of using it, best I have ever owned and I don't regret the purchase one iota.





East Wind Photography said:


> Oh yeah I dont even use the 7D any more. My images are so much better with the 5DIII even when I crop to make up the APC-C size loss. The 7D is just a backup now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Eldar (Oct 2, 2013)

I have both bodies and I am happy with both. But when I go out and I don´t know exactly what I´m up to, I take the 1DX, because it can handle more situations than the 5DIII. In some cases, good light being one, I benefit from the higher resolution of the 5DIII and I also appreciate the lower weight, when combined with the 600/4 II. I have the battery grip for it, but I very seldom use it. To me it is the perfect combination having both.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 3, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I have both bodies and I am happy with both. But when I go out and I don´t know exactly what I´m up to, I take the 1DX, because it can handle more situations than the 5DIII. In some cases, good light being one, I benefit from the higher resolution of the 5DIII and I also appreciate the lower weight, when combined with the 600/4 II. I have the battery grip for it, but I very seldom use it. To me it is the perfect combination having both.



I agree Eldar, and I do exactly the same thing you do....having one of each is great for the reasons you stated.

Looking forward to a big MP to replace the 5d3....but I don't see the 1dx leaving my bag for quite some time.


----------



## Nazareth (Oct 3, 2013)

Nazareth said:


> old post I know, just wanted to give my experience with the 1DX and battery drain, and to ask if this is normal or not-
> 
> I generally shoot for abotu 2 hours a day, moving from scene to scene, turnign off the LCD live view between shots, although sometimes I forget, but it quickly turns itself off after a minute or so-, and liek I said, I'm not taking tons of photos- and it just seems like I should be gettign quite a bit more shots between charges? Or is this about on par with other folk's experiences with htese batteries?



Sounds like your battery is draining faster than it should, or at least faster than mine seem to - with usage as you describe, I'd expect several days on a fully charged battery. Just to confirm, you're using the LP-E4N battery charged in an LC-E4N charger? The -N batteries are outwardly the same as the older ones, and can be charged in the old 1-series battery charger...but doing so, they will not be fully charged even when they appear to be based on the LED lights on the charger.
[/quote]

Yes, the battery and charger are the LP-E4N and the charger is the LC-E4N. Just took my camera out shooting 2 days, using hte Live view for about 1/3 of my shots (I use thel iveview when taking low shots that only a circus acrobat could see through the viewfinder- since I'm far from an acrobat, I'm forced to use the live view on low shots). shot around 200 shots (takes me a lot of tries to get scenes right in camera- so keep shooting to eliminate distractiosn etc- but I'm not using lvieview to review the shots- I peek quick when the camera takes the shots and disp-lays it briefly- so the liveview review can't be blamed as I'm not usign that to review my shots constantly). The battery was a bit more than 1/2 drained- I could probably get another 2 hours of shooting the next day- but hten I'd be running into low battery for sure-


----------

