# Bryan Carnathan's 1D X Review Is Finished



## bdunbar79 (Aug 1, 2012)

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

Enjoy!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 1, 2012)

I read it earlier today. He seems enthusiastic about it, but its also obvious that the 5D MK III will suffice for many of us. He does tell us what works well, and what doesn't.
I think that there seems to be quite a consensus of experienced experts giving a thumbs up. I was considering one, but decided to buy a new lens instead. I'm still on the fence about getting another 5D MK III. There have been some better prices, but those are likely from dealers who took the double down rebates and applied $200 discount to the body and will sell the lenses for full price. That might mean prices will rise again.


----------



## M.ST (Aug 1, 2012)

If you are a portrait or landscape photographer get the 5D Mark III (5D Mark II oder 1Ds Mark III) and invest in good lenses.

If you are a sports or wildlife photographer get the 1D Mark IV with 1.3 crop or buy the 1D X and invest in a or in a few supertelephotos.


----------



## heptagon (Aug 1, 2012)

Sadly, the 1DX won't focus at F/8 so teleconverters are of limited use for wildlife photography.

Also raw noise of the 1DX isn't especially good compared to the 5D3 after factoring in that they lowered the ISOs.


----------



## Adrian S. (Aug 1, 2012)

I have been waiting to see this review and read it eagerly today. After reading it, and summing up what I need in a camera, I opted for a used 1dMk4 + 5D3 as my combo. Awesome review, but I really feel the 5D3 gives more "bang for your buck" vs the 1Dx.


----------



## heptagon (Aug 1, 2012)

Adrian S. said:


> ...I really feel the 5D3 gives more "bang for your buck" vs the 1Dx.


Unless you need 12fps.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 1, 2012)

heptagon said:


> Sadly, the 1DX won't focus at F/8 so teleconverters are of limited use for wildlife photography.



200 f/2 +2x +1.4
300 f/2.8 + 2x
400 f/2.8 + 2x
500 f/4 + 1.4
600 f/4 + 1.4

Not that limited then


----------



## Wilmark (Aug 1, 2012)

I have read several reviews from Bryans site. I am amazed at the amount of canon lenses he has tested, even when compared with dpreview. But i have been dissapointed with how he looks at products and it appears that he tries to avoid being overly critical. I feel that i have been mislead by his statements. So many lenses he would so many positive things about it you would think that its a must have. His reviews does not really help to make purchase decisions, where we need to see how alternatives stack up. He is too nice to the canon gear he reviews. Even DPreview has been dissapointing. Esp with their D800 and 5D MkIII reviews. But that another story.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 1, 2012)

Wilmark said:


> I have read several reviews from Bryans site. I am amazed at the amount of canon lenses he has tested, even when compared with dpreview. But i have been dissapointed with how he looks at products and it appears that he tries to avoid being overly critical. I feel that i have been mislead by his statements. So many lenses he would so many positive things about it you would think that its a must have. His reviews does not really help to make purchase decisions, where we need to see how alternatives stack up. He is too nice to the canon gear he reviews. Even DPreview has been dissapointing. Esp with their D800 and 5D MkIII reviews. But that another story.



Why would you think he is going to be nasty to probably the best all round camera?


----------



## Wilmark (Aug 1, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Why would you think he is going to be nasty to probably the best all round camera?



I was commenting about his reviews in general. They dont get very much discussed elsewhere, but he has one of the most comprehensive reviews of canon lenses out there. I have read most of it, and i wish he would be more critical at times as my post said. When you are making a buying decision you need the help of those who have actually used the item.


----------



## dr croubie (Aug 1, 2012)

Wilmark said:


> and it appears that he tries to avoid being overly critical.



He's not always so nice, just depends on which reviews you look at:
Sigma 20mm f/1.8
"Unfortunately, I consider the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Lens to be unusable at f/1.8 unless you are looking for a soft-focus effect. This lens is one of the softest I've seen wide open. 
In conclusion, I recommend not buying the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Lens. Sorry Sigma, this one is a dud."

It's not just sigma:
EF 80-200
"The Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is a very small, very light and very cheap telephoto zoom lens.
There is no sticker shock when checking the price on this lens. But, as often is the case, you get what you pay for. 
With the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens, you also get very cheap build quality. 
Optically, the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is disappointing. 
Basically, the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is a very cheap telephoto zoom lens with performance relative to its cost."

Sure, with the L lenses and 1-series bodies he's not going to be too negative, but even in the 1DX review he says things like:
"...but first, I want to point out a potential downside for 1D Mark IV body owners looking to upgrade to the 1D X... This is of course disappointing to many extender users... The largest group of photographers affected by this change are, probably, bird photographers (such as Arthur Morris) - who have been dealt a double blow with the 1D X. Bird photography typically needs the most reach possible - through both lens focal length and sensor density. Increasing focal length via extenders has now been limited (for autofocus to function) and the 1D X has a less-dense sensor than either of the previous 1-Series models...
This is, perhaps, the end of that era. I have to admit that I'm surprised by this design decision. "

He sounds almost British here, being polite as possible about a change for the worse when you can really tell he's annoyed by the no f/8 and knows a lot of others are too.

You just have to read between the lines a bit when reading his reviews, to tell which lenses/bodies he loves and which ones not so much...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2012)

As with any information, you need to consider the source. It's important to read many/most of the reviews on a particular site, to get a feel for the style. For example, while I find Bryan's reviews very reliable, it's important to note that his reviews are generally positive and upbeat - he usually finds something to praise about every lens (which is not unreasonable, but helpful to know if you're just reading one review). One of the very nice features of TDP is that in addition to the text reviews of the lenses, there are technical comparisons of sharpness, vignetting, distortion, etc., showing the actual images (as opposed to reduced and plotted data), which allows the readers to see for themselves and draw their own objective conclusions.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> As with any information, you need to consider the source. It's important to read many/most of the reviews on a particular site, to get a feel for the style. For example, while I find Bryan's reviews very reliable, it's important to note that his reviews are generally positive and upbeat - he usually finds something to praise about every lens (which is not unreasonable, but helpful to know if you're just reading one review). One of the very nice features of TDP is that in addition to the text reviews of the lenses, there are technical comparisons of sharpness, vignetting, distortion, etc., showing the actual images (as opposed to reduced and plotted data), which allows the readers to see for themselves and draw their own objective conclusions.


+1
Each reviewer has his own style. However, several that I've now read have a lot of positives and few negatives. I have a 1D MK IV which I bought to replace my D800, however, I've yet to use the f/8 AF capability. I never used it on the D800 either.
If you are one who cannot afford those big whites, or just like me, can't handle the weight, then using a 400mm f/5.6 or 100-400mm with TC is a advantage over using a 7D. and no TC.
I need to try my MK IV at f/11. My 1D MK III would AF at f/11 with certain lenses.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 1, 2012)

I think the big points that are being left out in the analysis or the superior metering and color accuracy of the 1DX over other cameras. That goes a long way. Take a 1DX and 5D3 in fluorescent lighting and you'll see exactly what I mean.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 2, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As with any information, you need to consider the source. It's important to read many/most of the reviews on a particular site, to get a feel for the style. For example, while I find Bryan's reviews very reliable, it's important to note that his reviews are generally positive and upbeat - he usually finds something to praise about every lens (which is not unreasonable, but helpful to know if you're just reading one review). One of the very nice features of TDP is that in addition to the text reviews of the lenses, there are technical comparisons of sharpness, vignetting, distortion, etc., showing the actual images (as opposed to reduced and plotted data), which allows the readers to see for themselves and draw their own objective conclusions.
> ...


You should try the 300f4L with the canon 2x tc to give 600 f8 780 full frame equivalent its not a bad combo on a 1d af is respectable with the center point too you just need lots of light


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> You should try the 300f4L with the canon 2x tc to give 600 f8 780 full frame equivalent its not a bad combo on a 1d af is respectable with the center point too you just need lots of light



I've been seriously considering replacing my 7D with a 1DIV. It's less than half the cost of a 500/4 II to put on the 1D X, and even though a gripped 7D won't go for much on the used market, what I'd get for it, added to the cash on hand in my gear fund, would cover an LN-/EX+ 1DIV...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > You should try the 300f4L with the canon 2x tc to give 600 f8 780 full frame equivalent its not a bad combo on a 1d af is respectable with the center point too you just need lots of light
> ...



That actually would be the best replacement purchase scenario I can imagine. The 1D4 for the 7D would be incredibly smart and worthwhile. Not that the 7D is a bad camera, it's just you get the incredible features of the 1D4 along with the 1.3x factor. That's one of the main reasons the 1D4 is in my kit. I like that crop factor and 1D body metering capabilities.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> That actually would be the best replacement purchase scenario I can imagine. The 1D4 for the 7D would be incredibly smart and worthwhile. Not that the 7D is a bad camera, it's just you get the incredible features of the 1D4 along with the 1.3x factor. That's one of the main reasons the 1D4 is in my kit. I like that crop factor and 1D body metering capabilities.



Yep. What holds me back is that's close to half of the 500/4 II...and I'm pretty sure that lens on my 1D X will trounce the 100-400mm on a 1DIV. Then again, birds/wildlife account for only about 10-15% of my shooting - should I _really_ spend $10K on a lens for that?


----------



## canon816 (Aug 2, 2012)

Adrian S. said:


> I have been waiting to see this review and read it eagerly today. After reading it, and summing up what I need in a camera, I opted for a used 1dMk4 + 5D3 as my combo. Awesome review, but I really feel the 5D3 gives more "bang for your buck" vs the 1Dx.



I would have to agree with this. I have a 5DII and a 1DIV.... and after toying with the idea of selling both to fund a 1DX decided that the smarter option would be to sell the 5DII and pick up a 5DIII. This would give the best of both worlds. A pro body with pro features (which I appreciate every time I shoot) and a body for WA along with high iso quality when the light gets low.

(NOTE* I probably wouldnt upgrade my 5DII to a 5DIII if the only difference was the 1 stop of ISO performance. I have always been disappointed with the AF system and the slow burst rate of 3FPS... With these items improved it has pushed me over the fence.)


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 2, 2012)

canon816 said:


> I have always been disappointed with the AF system and the slow burst rate of 3FPS...



5DII is 4 fps
5Dc is 3fps


----------



## drjlo (Aug 2, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I read it earlier today. He seems enthusiastic about it, but its also obvious that the 5D MK III will suffice for many of us. He does tell us what works well, and what doesn't.



The 5DIII vs. 1DX (res'd to 5DIII) resolution chart comparisons look to me sharper with more details with 5DIII, while the high ISO noise looks a little better with 1DX. I suppose that's the similar line of comparison when D800 resolution is compared to 5DIII, but with even larger resolution difference.

I do appreciate that 5DIII can become more portable with (optional) battery grip off for those more casual outings.


----------



## pwp (Aug 2, 2012)

Adrian S. said:


> I have been waiting to see this review and read it eagerly today. After reading it, and summing up what I need in a camera, I opted for a used 1dMk4 + 5D3 as my combo.



Since the 5DIII shipped, I have been VERY happy with the 1D4 & 5DIII combo. Where the 5DIII eats the Mk4 for breakfast is low light AF. Still, if my business strings together another couple of strong months a 1DX will be irresistible. As much as I like the 5DIII files, low light AF, high iso etc, the 1-Series body is my primary "go-to" camera. Hell, I'd like two 1DX bodies!

PW


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 2, 2012)

There has been much focus on low light/high iso for the 1DX

I haven't been able to see much reporting on high light/low iso yet.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 2, 2012)

I have discovered that if I put a kenko extension tube between the lens and extender it reports no aperture change and AF works fine obviously this is of limited use though


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 2, 2012)

I really enjoyed the review, it is well written, easy to understand, and must have taken him quite some time to put together.

I was amazed by the 26 shot burst at 12fps he put together. Makes deciding which picture to use all that harder!

One thing I was surprised about is in the summary where he lists the pros and cons. Is there really no headphone jack on the 1D X?


----------



## canon816 (Aug 2, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> canon816 said:
> 
> 
> > I have always been disappointed with the AF system and the slow burst rate of 3FPS...
> ...



Actually the 5DII is 3.9 FPS.... but I wasn't really splitting hairs with my statement. Just pointing out that it was slllooooowwwwww.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 2, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> There has been much focus on low light/high iso for the 1DX
> 
> I haven't been able to see much reporting on high light/low iso yet.



Brian, 

Let's do this. This weekend I'll shoot at ISO 50 on the 1DX and 1Ds3. With a tripod of course.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 2, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > There has been much focus on low light/high iso for the 1DX
> ...



;D ;D ;D


----------



## ScottyP (Aug 2, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Wilmark said:
> 
> 
> > and it appears that he tries to avoid being overly critical.
> ...



I like his reviews, and his site, and his lens comparison tool is fantastic (and unique I think!) so don't get me wrong here. I am a fan. So don't take the following as criticism of his character or the value of his reviews, or the effort he puts in.

But saying he trashed a Sigma lens and sniffed at a few hapless non-L Canon lenses is missing the point. My one niggle with Bryan's reviews is that sometimes it feels like he's never met a red-ring lens he didn't love (unless it has just been replaced with a new more expensive red-ringed mk2 lens), and he never gives the same kind of unqualified praise to any 3rd-party lenses. 

I don't call it a "bias" because that word has negative connotations, and he does it with great intentions. I just think it is a point-of-view he brings to it.


----------



## JR (Aug 3, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> There has been much focus on low light/high iso for the 1DX
> 
> I haven't been able to see much reporting on high light/low iso yet.



Well by no mean I am not a reference here but I am VERY impressed with the low ISO performnace of the 1DX. The amount of details is incredible. My only comparable point of reference would be the Nikon D4 since I already sold the 5D mkII and I have no experience with previous Canon 1D product.

That said, while I believe the Nikon D4 still has a higher DR at low ISO, I find the 1DX at ISO 100 to produce more impressive image. As well, anything shot below ISO 500 is unbielevably good for me anyway.

The first image below is ISO 250 while the second one is ISO 400.


----------



## JR (Aug 3, 2012)

And here are two ISO portraits...


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 3, 2012)

@jr - many thanks - looks very promising


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 11, 2012)

Looks like the 1D X's faux manual mode is exactly the same as the 1D Mark IV. There is a minimum shutter speed you can set in the main menu, however, the fastest in that menu is 1/250s.

If ISO Safety Shift, Min shutter speed to 1/500 or 1/1000, with auto ISO and EC set to whatever you wish. I would have liked if you can set Min shutter to 1/640 or 1/800. I can't remember if you can on the 1D4 but I don't think you could; I think it jumped from 1/500 to 1/1000 if I remember correctly.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 11, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Looks like the 1D X's faux manual mode is exactly the same as the 1D Mark IV. There is a minimum shutter speed you can set in the main menu, however, the fastest in that menu is 1/250s.
> 
> If ISO Safety Shift, Min shutter speed to 1/500 or 1/1000, with auto ISO and EC set to whatever you wish. I would have liked if you can set Min shutter to 1/640 or 1/800. I can't remember if you can on the 1D4 but I don't think you could; I think it jumped from 1/500 to 1/1000 if I remember correctly.



The 1D4 goes 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000, 1/2000 as well

I am very happy with that - most of the time I use 1/250 or 1/500 by default.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 11, 2012)

I am happy with it too, but you know how it is, when you get something new you maybe hope it may do the 1/3 stops of 1/640 and 1/800 8)


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 11, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I am happy with it too, but you know how it is, when you get something new you maybe hope it may do the 1/3 stops of 1/640 and 1/800 8)



It is only a minimum - so in bright light I am often much faster

Dont forget you can dial in min/max ISO too - again full stops. My 1D4 is set for L/6400

Another alternative is to set the Safety shift to TV/AV and shoot on TV

In Tv mode, the Tv/Av Safety Shift behaves the same way only changing the shutter speed instead. For a required exposure of f/1.4 at 1/250th with a lens that can only open up to f/2.8, Safety Shift would cause the camera to drop the shutter speed to 1/60th to insure a proper exposure. Alternatively, an exposure that required an aperture smaller than the lens could produce would result in shortening the shutter speed until the exposure was correct. With Autoiso set then this only shifts when the ISO limit is reached. 

This gives you the fine control over the shutter speed


----------

