# How can I choose between 1DX and 5D MARK III?



## firewalker (Nov 6, 2013)

I want to upgrade my camera which is 5D markii. 
For those of you who have tried both the Canon 1DX and 5D MKIII,

1. how do they compare to each other? 

2. How do they compare in image quality?(Especially under ISO 50 and 100)

3. Do you think that it's worth getting the 1DX over the 5D MKIII if I mostly do a lot of landscape shots and sometime shoot birds?

Many thanks!


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 6, 2013)

If you have to ask, get the MK3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2013)

firewalker said:


> 1. how do they compare to each other?
> 
> 2. How do they compare in image quality?(Especially under ISO 50 and 100)
> 
> 3. Do you think that it's worth getting the 1DX over the 5D MKIII if I mostly do a lot of landscape shots and sometime shoot birds?



1. They're both excellent. The 1D X is a little more excellent (and I love mine).

2. No meaningful differences under ISO 3200. 

3. I'd say no, unless you plan to shoot a lot of landscapes in the rain.


----------



## firewalker (Nov 6, 2013)

So should I say 1DX is not good at landscape shooting?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2013)

firewalker said:


> So should I say 1DX is not good at landscape shooting?



If you need to drive in a nail, would you buy a hammer, or would you buy a 200-piece tool kit that included 4 hammers? The 1D X is great at landscape shooting...but if that's your main focus, it's likely more than you need.


----------



## jasonsim (Nov 6, 2013)

If landscapes are your main subject, I would get the 5D Mk III. It has extra pixels that most landscape photogs enjoy. The 5D III will still do very well with tracking birds in flight and 6FPS is very respectable. The AF system is basically the same as the 1Dx and you now get f/8 AF (using converters). 

The 1Dx is good if you mainly stay in AI SERVO and do lots of sports or wildlife photography. It has spot AF for any focus point that helps shooting indoor sports (especially helpful for ice skating and hockey). There might also be a 1 stop benefit in ISO noise quality over the 5D MK III. This might be important for wedding photographers and event stuff. But, unless you are getting paid for those things, I'm not sure that is worth the extra coin on its own. It has better weather sealing yes, but for me personally, I don't think I would test its limits anyway. If it starts to hail or down pour and I am out with my 500mm or 600mm with the 1Dx, I am looking for cover; no matter what they say is sealed. If you are a working professional and need the shots rain or shine, then you might test the weather seals more than I care to do. 

The other thing to consider is the substantial price differential. The 5D III is on sale many places now and the savings from not buying the 1Dx, might afford you another lens to add to your arsenal. I am thinking a 17mm f/4L TS-E might be nice for landscape work or a 14mm f/2.8L II. Just a thought.

Best of luck to you. You really cannot go wrong with either of those bodies!

--Jason


----------



## sanj (Nov 6, 2013)

1dx and 5d3 do not compare when it comes to shooting birds.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 6, 2013)

The choice between the 5D Mark III and the 1DX is no choice, at all.


----------



## Mexecutioner (Nov 6, 2013)

I have both, I use the 5D3 for landscapes mostly and for birds or other action shots the 1DX. Before I got the 5D3 I used the 1DX for everything and is an excellent performer. If you don't need the speed then save some $ and get the 5D3 along with a nice glass.
Consider the size and weight of the 1DX body too. Does not matter to me, but can get heavy after a few hours of carrying it around.


----------



## chilledXpress (Nov 6, 2013)

Mexecutioner said:


> I have both, I use the 5D3 for landscapes mostly and for birds or other action shots the 1DX. Before I got the 5D3 I used the 1DX for everything and is an excellent performer. If you don't need the speed then save some $ and get the 5D3 along with a nice glass.
> Consider the size and weight of the 1DX body too. Does not matter to me, but can get heavy after a few hours of carrying it around.



Owning both also, I concur. I think your point #3 says a lot. If you are a BIF person or sports shooter needing a high FPS most of the time then 1DX... if 90% of the time landscapes, portraiture and general photography are what you're doing then the 5D3 is a sweet rig. Money being no object, either way you really can't go wrong with those choices.


----------



## distant.star (Nov 6, 2013)

Mexecutioner??

What does that mean??


----------



## Sharp Shot (Nov 6, 2013)

I own both cameras, so this is my take.
1. Weight, size and frames per second are the big differences between them. The difference in mp is notable as well, but I consider that to be secondary. If you do a lot of hiking for landscapes, the smaller size and weight is a big factor in favor of the 5D Mk III. Frames per second aren't usually a factor in landscapes, unless you're shooting waves or other moving things.
2. At low ISO settings, image quality is comparable, both are excellent. That said, I've always considered the 1DX to have a "buttery" look to them, really smooth. At higher ISO settings, the 1DX beats the 5D Mk III hands down.
3. The 1DX is superb at bird or other moving object photography. It just can't be beat. The 5D Mk III is also excellent but the 12 vs 6 fps and the buffer size makes a big difference. They have similar autofocus, but the 1DX is better due to its dedicated processor. I've captured many great birds in flight shots with the 5D Mk III that I would not have been able to take with the 5D Mk II, which I also owned.

Most of my shooting is for the birds, secondary is landscape. When I go for landscapes, the 1DX stays home. When I go for birds, the 1DX is on the 600 mm lens and the 5D Mk III is on the 200 - 400 mm or a 70 - 200 with a 1.4X. Both get used and produce great images

Bottom line recommendation, buy the 5D Mk III and save the money for another lens or something else that would improve your photography.


----------



## j1jenkins (Nov 6, 2013)

I own the 5D Mk III and I love it. It's not as fast at the 1Dx, but I still use it for action shots and it performs well. I have rented the 1Dx and it's OUTSTANDING for action at 12 fps, but if you're shooting landscapes, the frame rate isn't nearly as important. Also, the 5D has 4 more megapixels than the 1Dx. 

If money is no object, then get both. ;D


----------



## Northstar (Nov 6, 2013)

i have both....IQ is slightly better w/ 5d3 due to extra pixels if i'm shooting landscape.

1dx IQ takes the lead at 2000 ISO and above.

1dx is made for sport and wildlife shooters...and folks that need weather sealing.


----------



## wayno (Nov 6, 2013)

If you mostly shoot landscapes then the 5d3 won't offer you much more than the 5d2. That said, the birds thing will make a difference. I've recently added a 5d3 to my kit and it is a great camera but to my eye, there is no difference in IQ. In fact at low ISO I find myself preferring the 5d2 by a whisker.


----------



## caruser (Nov 6, 2013)

j1jenkins said:


> If money is no object, then get both. ;D


Or get the 1DX for BiF etc. and keep the 5DII as backup and for light(er) weight hiking. For landscapes there shouldn't be much difference between the 5DII and 5DIII.

That's more or less what I did because the 1DX had a few features that I was really interested in; that said, I would also love to have the 5DIII's silent mode (the 1DX also has a "silent mode" but it isn't really silent).


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 6, 2013)

1) What are you buying into?
This question is answered quite thoroughly by others.

2) They both shoot exceptionally clean images up to ISO-800, and acceptably good up to 3200. From 3200 upwards the 1DX is about 1-stop cleaner. Personally I wouldn't shoot higher than 25600 on the 1DX or 12800 on the 5D-III but that's just me.

3) In your work, how often will the 27% more pixels of the 5D-III give you the image you need vs how often will 14fps get you the picture you need?


----------



## retina (Nov 6, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> If you have to ask, get the MK3.



+1



DaveMiko said:


> The choice between the 5D Mark III and the 1DX is no choice, at all.



+1

Big enough gap between the two camera's, from specs to price. This shouldn't be a that hard decision really...

Following the "right tool for the job" principle, you should make your choice based on what you will shoot, rather than the image quality difference between the two, which will be quite minimal (if any) @ 100 ISO.

You could also consider 6D + 7D/70D for landscape and birds respectively.


----------



## pwp (Nov 6, 2013)

Mexecutioner said:


> Consider the size and weight of the 1DX body too. Does not matter to me, but can get heavy after a few hours of carrying it around.


A meaningful comparison between these two cameras should refer to a gripped 5D3.

Canon 1DX with battery 1,540 grams (3.4 lb) 
Canon 5D Mk3 with grip & two batteries 1,418 grams (3.12 lb)

And to illustrate how they've grown:
Canon 1D Mk4 with battery 1,390 grams (3.0 lb)

-pw


----------



## jasonsim (Nov 6, 2013)

You can without a doubt capture BIF with a 5D III. For those that cannot, might need to improve their skill. The AF on the 5D III is superior to 1D MK 4, which many wildlife photographers lived and died by and still do.

All captured with a 5D III:


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 7, 2013)

Forgive my ignorance as I'm shooting 6D. Do I understand that the spot metering and focus from an outer point correspond for the 1Dx, but with the 5D3 the metering is not taken from the selected spot? I'm only using the center point and spot metering with the 6D as I know I wouldn't get what I do, otherwise. 

I'm also looking at a second purchase between 5D3 (not too likely), the mythical 7D2 (would that really be a reach advantage) and whatever comes as an updated 1Dx. After about a year I now see I have a strong inclination towards using my 300 2.8 II only with the 2X III for the 600 reach. I'm happy with the 6D generally but miss most action shots, which doesn't thrill me.

Any thoughts? 

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> Do I understand that the spot metering and focus from an outer point correspond for the 1Dx, but with the 5D3 the metering is not taken from the selected spot?



Correct. Currently, only 1-series dSLR bodies can spot meter at any AF point, all others spot meter in the center only. 1-series also do multipoint metering, where you can meter on up to eight spots and it will average them.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 7, 2013)

Thanks neuro,

At this moment that would be a pretty significant factor in me choosing to use other points. I almost always am using spot metering with the 6D with my bird or small animal shots as that seems to give me the best exposure provided the subject is large enough in the frame. BIF not filling the frame means I don't have a hope with the center spot hand holding 600mm so I'd activate all the spots but that brings its own problems it seems.


My two years of wildlife shooting is about enough to be able to sense what I'm missing that others take advantage of. One year of D5100 with 300mm - pretty happy, now almost one year 6D with 300mm X2 - thrilled but beginning to be a little frustrated! 

Jack


----------



## docsmith (Nov 7, 2013)

I've always liked the reviews over at The-Digital-Picture.com. Toward the end, they list the advantages the 1DX has over the 5DIII and vice versa:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

Personally, I bought the 5DIII. It's great. You are debating two great cameras. There are times when I see something about the 1DX that makes me want it. Heck, there are times when I want 36 MP of the D800. But the 5DIII is absolutely a great camera and I shoot everything from portraits to BIF with it.


----------



## firewalker (Nov 7, 2013)

Guys, many thanks for your explanations.

Currently I am doing my landscape shots, because I have owned Zeiss 21 2.8, EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF 24-105, which are good ( I wouldn't say enough ) for landscape. However, I am also interested in birds and wildlife, and even football shooting, the problem is I do not own 400mm and plus.

Back to my topic, if I buy 1DX, I can not only shoot landscape, but also wildlife in the future. My question is:

1. compared with 5D3, is 1DX better or equivalent to on landscape shooting?

2. Lacking of 4 megapixels, is it the big gap between 1DX and 5D3 on landscape shooting?


----------



## Grumbaki (Nov 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Do I understand that the spot metering and focus from an outer point correspond for the 1Dx, but with the 5D3 the metering is not taken from the selected spot?
> ...



More than any other factor, that is to me the biggest gap between the 5d3 and 1dx. But for lanscape (have time to get the expo right) and birds (spot does good), how does that really matter?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2013)

firewalker said:


> I want to upgrade my camera which is 5D markii.
> For those of you who have tried both the Canon 1DX and 5D MKIII,
> 
> 1. how do they compare to each other?



1DX drives super-tele AF a bit faster.

1DX is a heavy, bulky brick that I don't like personally.

1DX has better quality movies straight out of the camera for sure. OTOH, if you are willing to shoot RAW, then using ML RAW video makes the 5D3 video quality better than anything the 1DX can do and you also get much better video usability controls with ML than the 1DX gives you.

1DX has faster trigger reaction time and much faster FPS.




> 2. How do they compare in image quality?(Especially under ISO 50 and 100)



ISO50 is basically useless on both AFAIK, just a clipped ISO100.
ISO100 is pretty similar although the 1DX has a bit less banding in the deep shadows, so the files are a bit more workable than with the 5D3, and getting close to the best Canonhas offered for that (1Ds3/6D) although pretty far from D4/Df never mind D800 and all. 5D3 a bit more res but 1DX a bit better behaved shadow banding at ISO100, I'd give it to the 1DX at ISO100 by a noticeable if not really large degree.



> 3. Do you think that it's worth getting the 1DX over the 5D MKIII if I mostly do a lot of landscape shots and sometime shoot birds?
> 
> Many thanks!



It's a LOT of extra money to get a bit better shadow banding control and a lot of extra weight to lug around so it's your call. The files are a bit more malleable at ISO100 although it's not like huge 3 stops more, even to notice and make a difference but $4000 more I don't know so much at all, especially with the weight penalty.

You could add an A7R+adapter+5D3 and get better landscape quality (assuming the adapters prove to not toss of lens alignment, not yet proven) than from the 1DX with ease, much more DR and more detail. The 5D3 could handle the birds a bit better than the 5D2 with the higher fps and better AF and a bit better high ISO. That said, for birds, I bet an upcoming 7D2 would be better than either the 5D3 or 1DX. Maybe an A7R+adpater soon, if they prove to work well with Canon glass, and then a 7D2 next spring (assuming it arrives then, it should, but then again, Canon has been late with most things, so many it won't be avail until the end of summer or early fall? do you want to wait that long or not?).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2013)

firewalker said:


> Guys, many thanks for your explanations.
> 
> Currently I am doing my landscape shots, because I have owned Zeiss 21 2.8, EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF 24-105, which are good ( I wouldn't say enough ) for landscape. However, I am also interested in birds and wildlife, and even football shooting, the problem is I do not own 400mm and plus.
> 
> ...



An A7R+24-70 II I'd say would be a lot better, again assuming adpter works well, for landscapes than a 24-105 on a 1DX, miles better. I'd also take a 5D3+24-70 II over a 1DX+24-105 for landscapes.

For birds, my old 7D was often better than my 5D3 is, unless I can get close and then the 5D3 is better.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2013)

One question you fail to ask:

are the 5D3 and 1DX better than the current 5D2 I already own for landscapes at ISO100 and the answer is not at all and sometimes a little worse and sometimes a little better, respectively.

many a pure landscape shoot stuck with their 5D2 and are now eyeing the A7R+adapter. If you do video and general stuff and action and use AF a lot the 5D3 is a nice upgrade over the 5D2, nicer UI too (auto changing C1-C3, instant 100% review). If the non-landscape is almost all birds though, reach might be at a premium and some high reach, 8-10fps 7D2 might be a bigger upgrade than the 5D3, unless you tend to mostly shoot birds where you are really close in with the lenses you have (if all you have is a 70-200 that would be my guess never  ).


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 7, 2013)

firewalker said:


> I want to upgrade my camera which is 5D markii.
> For those of you who have tried both the Canon 1DX and 5D MKIII,
> 
> 1. how do they compare to each other?
> ...



(1) They are completely different.

(2) Don't know- pretty rare for me to be at 100. But, in actual use, the 1DX has far more latitude in producing totally useable files over ISO 4000 right out of the camera. The noise looks nicer and cleans up easier. Even at A3+ size prints, you may not have do do anything special. For me, more latitude without using a flash is a big deal.

(3) There are so many variables that there is no one correct answer. I suspect there are many people that will only take pictures at ISO 100 and others that do not. There is a great deal of skill in capturing great bird photos and you do not need a 5DIII or 1DX to do it (certainly, lots of great bird images were taken without either camera)- but either may help. Note- I do not yet posess the skills to take great bird pictures. There is a list of stuff on a spec sheet and there is the stuff that happens in real life when using the equipment. There seems to be an awful lot of pixel peeping going on- my 5D2 produced images that I never would have imagined from plain old 35mm film, when 4x6 prints were an upgrade. Seems to be an awful lot of fixation on the details that can be extracted from dark areas in a picture/file. I don't get that, either. To each their own*. That said, if you flub a picture and want to try and recover it a bit, there is more latitude in 1DX files.

In short, if the 5DIII is a 9 or 10 on the volume knob, the 1DX goes to 11. Certainly worth it if it is on your list.


*So, how many people pushing shadows on a computer had the darkroom equipment to do the same thing?


----------



## dolina (Nov 7, 2013)

You can buy two 5D3 for the price of one 1DX.


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 7, 2013)

firewalker said:


> 2. Lacking of 4 megapixels, is it the big gap between 1DX and 5D3 on landscape shooting?



There is more than one account on more than one forum that mentions that it isn't just the number of MP.

Above a certain ISO threshold, the noise effectively reduces your MP count for you. How that camera resolves/processes the noise begins to matter more than MP counts.

I don't recall the numbers exactly, so I will not quote them. Feel free to do your own digging. I recall reading, essentially, that if you take pictures at a relatively low ISO all the time, say ~400, there is no readily apparent difference between the 5DIII and 1DX and the 5DIII has a slight advantage if you pixel peep. That changes quickly as the ISO goes up. 

There is also very little difference in image size when printed at 300 dpi. Others smarter than I have done the math.

While 4mp sounds like a lot, if you do enough digging, the conclusions will be readily apparent.


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 7, 2013)

dolina said:


> You can buy two 5D3 for the price of one 1DX.



It isn't always just that simple.

Camera stuff can be cheaper than speed parts... and lots of other stuff


----------



## George D. (Nov 7, 2013)

For landscape shooting with the 5D MkIII what about the dpreview comments that foliage appears mushy and that out-of-camera JPEG is poor? Is 1Dx above that standard? 
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/23#lowcontrast


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> *So, how many people pushing shadows on a computer had the darkroom equipment to do the same thing?



Me....and I remember when dogde and burn were more than just tools in photoshop.


----------



## dolina (Nov 7, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > You can buy two 5D3 for the price of one 1DX.
> ...


It is that simple for the 99%.  1-Series body makes up 1% of all EOS sales based on production figures.


----------



## j1jenkins (Nov 7, 2013)

firewalker said:


> 1. compared with 5D3, is 1DX better or equivalent to on landscape shooting?
> 
> 2. Lacking of 4 megapixels, is it the big gap between 1DX and 5D3 on landscape shooting?



They are both good. I'm not so sure that 4ish megapixels will be a significant deal, but the added mp's will not hurt. If you were to print images from both cameras at 300dpi, the 5D images would be 1.9 inches x 1.3 inches larger. You can decide whether that is a big deal or not.

If it were me, I'd grab the 5D and put the left-over money towards a bigger zoom for birds. You'll lose 6 fps, but you can still grab action nicely with the 5D.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2013)

A Swedish site tested some Canon T&S lenses on the Sony A7R with adapter and said that the combo worked super well, crisp to the corners, amazing detail (and super DR).

If you really want to get a landscape upgrade from your 5D2 the 5D3 or 1DX won't do much for you. Either wait to see what Canon eventually comes out with or nab with Sony A7R with adapter. And then if you also want to improve bird capture ability, assuming you don't manage to shoot where you can mostly frame fill on FF, I'd wait for the Canon 7D2 next year and then maybe try a dual body Sony A7R+Canon 7D2 system. Or if you don't need a ton of extra reach and 6fps is enough and want something with superb video and don't mind manual focus for video and want one body to be FF and reliable for anything under the sun to some decent extent then maybe pair the A7R with the 5D3. 

Honestly my 5D3 really does nothing for my landscapes that my 5D2 didn't already do other than when I'm doing quick work the instant 100% review saves time and you can a little bit more rely AF to nail the shot first try, if you are doing slow tripod work none of that matters though. The 1DX would give a little more freedom to play with shadows without seeing banding, but really with Canon glass only the A7R would give a big jump for pure landscape shooting (for shots where you either want a ton of a ton of MP or where you need more DR, then the improvement is quite considerable, although for modest DR landscape shots where you don't need super tons of MP even then with the A7R it's nothing better than your 5D2).

I think you'd get a lot more improvements using those types of dual pairings than spending the same amount on a 1DX.

If you also do landscape movies though, the 5D3 and 1DX are considerable improvements over the 5D2 though. Super amazingly so if you are also willing to shoot RAW movies and use the 5D3. The technical quality of my 5D3 landscape videos is sooooo much higher than those from my 5D2.


----------



## Skulker (Nov 7, 2013)

firewalker said:


> Guys, many thanks for your explanations.
> 
> Currently I am doing my landscape shots, because I have owned Zeiss 21 2.8, EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF 24-105, which are good ( I wouldn't say enough ) for landscape. However, I am also interested in birds and wildlife, and even football shooting, the problem is I do not own 400mm and plus.
> 
> ...



1. The 1Dx is more to carry round and cost much more. I doubt that you will notice the differences in your landscape shots from one to the other. If you can take a good landscape you will be able to with either of these cameras.

2. It all depends what you are going to do with them. I don't notice the difference for what I do. I doubt you will either.

I have the 1Dx, and love it. For the wildlife that I mainly take it is the better camera. Defiantly. But its heavier and more expensive.

For most of my shots the 5D3 is the better camera. It is lighter to carry around and smaller.

Most of my shots are taken with the 5D3. But if I had to have just 1 it would be the 1Dx. 

I very much doubt that the pixel peepers and spec readers would be able to tell what camera had taken my images. There is a huge amount of rubbish spoken on here when people try to show how clever they are.

Either camera will take superb shots if you can use it. As will many others.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 7, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> My two years of wildlife shooting is about enough to be able to sense what I'm missing that others take advantage of. One year of D5100 with 300mm - pretty happy, now almost one year 6D with 300mm X2 - thrilled but beginning to be a little frustrated!
> Jack



Hi Jack, it doesn't get better with time, 1Dx + 200-400 and after a year or so I know I'll be looking to Canon dropping a High MP Body into the mix, Canon Nikon Sony ?? They Love People like us.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 8, 2013)

Hi Edward,

If anyone can speak with such authority it would be you!  

I first saw Garry Samples and then your work after discovering CR and you guys provide unbelievable motivation and I have to say a hearty thank you!! Actually to many others too. 

I guess in part it's the relentless competitive nature of humans as we see how green the grass is on the other side of the fence. For me it's also a perfectionist characteristic that I can blame on my mother. 

I bought the 6D as the least expensive stop gap camera that would introduce me to FF, thinking that flipping it wouldn't be the least expensive mistake. In the mean time it's a *fantastic* learning tool and I have lots to learn before I can truly say I must have something like the 1Dx. Yes I've missed lots of shots (more my inexperience than the camera) but I've gotten many that blow me away, so I'm very happy. The 300 2.8 II was the critical move I made - no regrets.

As I was advised so I advise - spend on glass first and foremost.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 8, 2013)

Somewhere in here someone suggested a 1D IV as an alternative. As a person who has never shot with a 1D or anything similar, that got me wondering what the pros and cons would be in stepping back in the 1D line.

Late 1D - $200 ......... 1D IV - $3000

Is there any merit in considering an older version considering the price or are there some serious negatives. Example: 1D - $200 to goof around with to get a feel for the line. Would it work with my 300 2.8 II for example.

For birding with 300 X2 does the 1D IV have merit relative to the 1.3 reach factor, considering the 5D3 is about the same price new?

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 8, 2013)

I don't mean to be rude, but this seems like a relatively simple decision, given the differences the other posters have described. 

Unless the speed, build quality, and high ISO advantages are worth the price difference, you will be perfectly happy with a 5DIII (+ battery grip?).

If you're still stuck, rent them both.


----------



## kbmelb (Nov 9, 2013)

I've had the 5D3 since April 4, 2012. I chose it over the 1Dx mostly for the MPs and little to do with price. Hind site I wish I went with the 1Dx, for cleaner high ISO, better AF, better metering and build quality.

The 5D3 is great but for a lot of what I do, I'm shooting in dark, sometimes back lit environments and with moving subjects. The 5D3 doesn't handle these well enough. My 1Ds3 would be great if not for the ISO limitations. So I am waiting on a refurbed 1Dx.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 9, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> Somewhere in here someone suggested a 1D IV as an alternative. As a person who has never shot with a 1D or anything similar, that got me wondering what the pros and cons would be in stepping back in the 1D line.
> 
> Late 1D - $200 ......... 1D IV - $3000
> 
> ...



Jack
I looked into this carefully as a cheap 1d IV became available locally. The 5DIII has much better AF and IQ, according to all reports. In practical terms for bird photography, the reach factor is not the 1.3 crop factor but is 1.1 because of the relative pixel densities of the 2 sensors. So, I decided against the 1d IV. The AF on the 5D III is just so good.
Alan


----------



## Eldar (Nov 9, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhere in here someone suggested a 1D IV as an alternative. As a person who has never shot with a 1D or anything similar, that got me wondering what the pros and cons would be in stepping back in the 1D line.
> ...


I can confirm the same. I actually bought a used 1DIV as a backup/compliment to the 1DX/5DIII, due to the 1.3x crop factor and improved weather sealing for use on a 600mm f4L IS II. But I have now sold it again (made a few bucks) for the reason Alan points out. I rather use the 1DX/5DIII combo. For a crop camera to outperform or be a sensible compliment to this combo (for long reach), it will need an equivalent AF system. The rumored spec for the 7DII looks promising.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 9, 2013)

Eldar said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



I generally agree with these comments, I used the 5DMK II & 1DMK IV (and the 1DsMk III) before buying into the 5DMK III & 1Dx, on my recent trip to Tanzania I did take the 1DMK IV along with 2 x 1Dx Bodies, my view was with the 600 + 1.4x and the 1.3 Crop on the 1DMK IV, I could reach out about as far as I really needed to.

I shot the 1DMK IV in varying situations alongside the 1Dx, and after a single session relegated the 1DMK IV to my Underwater Macro (where the 1.3 crop with the 100 Macro works a treat), in any relative terms, the 1DMK IV just doesn't live up to the 1Dx.

Against the 5DMK III though I think it's a closer run story, I think you need to look at just what your needs are, Landscape, Portrait etc, I don't see the 1DMK IV being better than the 5DMK III, wildlife, BIF etc, more severe conditions where you need a more robust Body, I would say the only place the 5DMK III trumps the 1DMK IV, is in the Focus array, 45 point on the 1DMK IV, versus 61 on the 5DMK III, I think they are quite evenly matched with a reach advantage to the 1DMK IV and certainly weather proofing and Frame Rate.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 9, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> One question you fail to ask:
> 
> are the 5D3 and 1DX better than the current 5D2 I already own for landscapes at ISO100 and the answer is not at all and sometimes a little worse and sometimes a little better, respectively.
> 
> many a pure landscape shoot stuck with their 5D2 and are now eyeing the A7R+adapter. If you do video and general stuff and action and use AF a lot the 5D3 is a nice upgrade over the 5D2, nicer UI too (auto changing C1-C3, instant 100% review). If the non-landscape is almost all birds though, reach might be at a premium and some high reach, 8-10fps 7D2 might be a bigger upgrade than the 5D3, unless you tend to mostly shoot birds where you are really close in with the lenses you have (if all you have is a 70-200 that would be my guess never  ).


I upgraded to 5DIII from 5DII and I found a big improvement in IQ in every circumstance. Much bigger than the modest pixel count bump would suggest. Other's have noticed this too, pegging the improvement equivalent to a 15% improvement. It may be due to microlens improvements and/or processor improvements.
For a long time I thought it was my imagination, but then I read an explanation somewhere, can't remember where.
Anyway, the jump from 5DII to 5DIII is bigger than the specs would suggest.


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 9, 2013)

Etienne said:


> Anyway, the jump from 5DII to 5DIII is bigger than the specs would suggest.



+1

Usable multiple outer focus points.

Increased ISO perfomance, less flash required.

5DII is a great camera, 5DIII is a great improvement.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 9, 2013)

Having used both and now own the 5diii, the two cameras are purpose built. The 1dx is geared up for sports photography and the 5diii for event and wedding photography. I mainly shoot wildlife which is somewhere in between. The 1dx is a fine camera that excels in many areas that the 5diii can not. However I chose the 5d3 for several reasons. The higher megapixel sensor on the 5d3 produces smaller noise patterns than the 1dx. I can crop a 5d3 shot tighter than I can on the 1dx...though at very high ISO the 1dx wins. However the 5d3 is very usable up to ISO 3200 with some post processing and noise filtering. Second, the 5diii in quiet mode is nearly silent. It's the quietest dslr made and allows me to shoot closer to wildlife from a blind without scaring them away. You can also shoot during a wedding ceremony without turning everyone's head. Lastly the size and weight were an issue for me. The 1dx is quite heavy and large. I try to travel with a small backpack and the 1dx was too large to pack. I can fit a 5d3 with a 300 2.8l plus extenders and one other smaller lens into a street walker pro backpack. Not so with a 1dx.

I do miss the 12fps but while I had the 1dx the shutter scared away most of what I normally photograph. I believe the upcoming 7d mark ii will fill the gap for me once it comes out.

You need to decide if the features of the 1dx are really something that you need or not. The 5d3 is my workhorse right now and has worked well through most every situation I have found myself in. It should be considered a primary camera and at least a backup to a 1dx if you choose to have that as a primary.

Hope some of my comments help you decide. You should consider renting both before purchasing. Might save you some anguish later.


----------



## WPJ (Nov 9, 2013)

Shouldn't the question have been "how do I choose between a 1DX or 2 5Dm3?"

haha, hihi


----------



## rmfagan (Nov 9, 2013)

To anyone that says the 5D3 AF is basically the same as the 1DX, I strongly beg to differ. I own a 5D3, and used a 1DX courtesy of CPS alongside it last night to shoot Teddy Bridgewater and Louisville roll UConn. The first thing I noticed is that the 1DX is worlds faster. Sure, it may be only a fraction of a second, but shooting elite athletes at the D-I level, that fraction of a second is everything. Where the 1DX would nail focus instantly, the 5D3 often wouldn't find focus until the "moment" had passed. I don't do much BIF, but I have to imagine there are similarities. To me, it was no contest. That said the 5D3 is no slouch and before I used the 1DX I was quite impressed/happy with the AF. Still am, just won't get anywhere near the same keepers.

Secondly, the 1DX tracks better...much, much better. The 5D3 isn't bad, but the 1DX kills it. This might not be as much of a problem if BIF are going perpendicular to the camera, but if distance is variable, it could. 1DX also disregards obstacles much better. It's enough of a difference that I, as a poor college student am now scraping pennies to finance a 1DX. 

As for landscapes, stick to the 5d3. It's great. Anything action, 1DX all the way. The 5D3 AF might have the same bones, but the 1DX has the muscle, speed, and smarts. We've all got the same bones as Usain Bolt too, right? But a world-beater on the track, I'm not.


----------



## Harry Muff (Nov 9, 2013)

Ask your wallet.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 10, 2013)

Thanks guys for the comments directed my way. 

Is a 1D capable of the roll I mentioned (goof off, getting OK pictures and learning a little about how the 1D line compares to smaller cameras) at $150 - $200 or is that a really dumb idea and a total waste of a few dollers?

Jack


----------



## Harry Muff (Nov 10, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks guys for the comments directed my way.
> 
> Is a 1D capable of the roll I mentioned (goof off, getting OK pictures and learning a little about how the 1D line compares to smaller cameras) at $150 - $200 or is that a really dumb idea and a total waste of a few dollers?
> 
> Jack




What?


----------



## candc (Nov 10, 2013)

Get the 1DX if you plan on:

a) being behind enemy lines
b)shooting Tasmanian sea bears

Or if
a)the difference between usain bolt's toe being an inch off the track or touching it makes a difference
b)you want it


----------



## jhpeterson (Nov 10, 2013)

I've found from costly experience that nothing but the 1D series of bodies will work for me. Granted, not all of you work on the water a hundred or more days a year, but, if you ever put your gear through some of the worst that nature can dish out, whether planned or not, you owe it to yourself to get the 1DX, or one of its earlier iterations. Better weather sealing, stronger materials and more rugged construction often make the difference between getting the shot when it counts and being down for the count.

On the other hand, if you're one who ALWAYS babies your camera, never mind; the 5DMark 3 will be fine.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 23, 2013)

If you can afford it and want to have the best DSLR out there, then, by all means, get the 1DX.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 23, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> If you can afford it and want to have the best DSLR out there, then, by all means, get the 1DX.



My personal opinion is that it's only the best if you shoot sports or other subjects that require capturing action. If you are a wedding photographer the 1dx is not the best option...the 5diii offers the quietest shutter made and allows you to shoot in places you otherwise wouldn't.


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 26, 2013)

It all depends on specific purposes. I would even rephrase the original question: is there a pressing reason to upgrade the existing 5DII? In my experience no. I took both to a shoot recently and could not tell the difference in picture quality for all practical purposes.

Is there something measurable? Yes, probably. But image quality difference is not convincing me to shell out thousands of dollars on new bodies.

Are there other reasons to go with a MarkIII or 1Dx? Plenty. But only the individual photographer and buyer can discern that. No camera today is "ideal" in my book. All have advantages and disadvantages. Some of this is probably by design for marketing purposes. So everyone needs to find their own sweet spots for specific purposes, even if all of those are great multipurpose cameras. First world problems really in the end.


----------



## Niki (Nov 26, 2013)

rent maybe first…I think if you're using a film camera now…that's the best image..(digital is for speed…work flow..work)


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 26, 2013)

Niki said:


> rent maybe first…I think if you're using a film camera now…that's the best image..(digital is for speed…work flow..work)


   

For a digital image you can add film grain in post processing, so that you will have comparable results. How then would film give you the best image??? Just try shooting film at ISO 800 or why not 1600 or 3200. You can get the same or better result using a fairly old digital camera. At ISO 50 or ISO 100 you can get results comparable to a digital camera, but that's under ideal conditions.

Do you develop your own film to make the most out of it? Post-processing a digital image is available for everyone on their home computers. You even get several tries to make it good. It's not only the speed, which has gone up. Image quality has gone places, too.

Back to the original question here's my advice in simplified form:
In case you need the silent shutter feature of the 5D Mark III, then this should be what you purchase.
If you need speed and/or optimized useability then you should go for the 1D-X.

I use both. 5D Mark III can serve as an excellent backup body for 1D-X.


----------



## RGF (Nov 26, 2013)

$ - 5D M3 wins

Higher FPS (for birds) - 1Dx wins

Build and feel - 1Dx wins

IQ - 1Dx wins


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 27, 2013)

Actually, reviewes suggest that both are excellent.

For landscape I would go for the 5D3 because of the extra pixels, excellent IQ, less weight and lower cost. 
If shooting moving subjects is also your target (and no money and weight constraints) I would buy the 1Dx.


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 27, 2013)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Actually, reviewes suggest that both are excellent.
> 
> For landscape I would go for the 5D3 because of the extra pixels, excellent IQ, less weight and lower cost.
> If shooting moving subjects is also your target (and no money and weight constraints) I would buy the 1Dx.



Once you add a battery grip to the 5D Mark III the weight and size advantage is lost. What remains is the excellent silent shutter plus those extra pixels.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 27, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, reviewes suggest that both are excellent.
> ...



Adding the battery and grip to 5d3 while increasing size and weight also gives you more shots between recharge than the 1dx. You can also remove the grip when size and weight are an issue. With the 1dx you just have to deal with the size and weight.


----------



## killakazzak (Apr 26, 2015)

Hello guys are there any differences of noise and resolution on ISO above 1600 ?


----------

