# 1DX or 1D4



## ReedZ (Jul 31, 2012)

Hi Everyone

I just want to hear an opinion from the forum readers, before I decided to buy which camera. Currently I am looking to buy the 1D bodies, I shoot birds, wildlife & landscape and I am not a wedding photographer.

I like the 1D4 because it offers good AF, reasonable ISO and autofocus available at f/8 and I don't mind getting a used body (it's cheaper). On the other hand the 1DX a new AF (autofocus only up to f/5.6) and ok I admit I like the new feature such as built in HDR for my landscape and multiple exposure (something interesting), but it's pricey.

So, in your opinion which one is better to get the 1DX or 1D4?

Thanks

Rgds
ReedZ


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 31, 2012)

you could almost get 2x 1D4's for just one 1Dx. 8)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 31, 2012)

ReedZ said:


> Hi Everyone
> 
> I just want to hear an opinion from the forum readers, before I decided to buy which camera. Currently I am looking to buy the 1D bodies, I shoot birds, wildlife & landscape and I am not a wedding photographer.
> 
> ...



Well it depends. Anything the 1D4 can do, the 1DX does better. However, for price, if you are shooting sports in enough light, go with the 1D4. If you do low-light sports/indoor sports, and weddings for instance, you'd get the 1DX or 5D3. If you love the built-in HDR and ME modes, actually the 5D3 is better. The 5D3 actually does very well in good light with AF and action/sports. If you don't need that, and want only speed and fps, and AF-point linked spot metering, get the 1D4. It's a tough choice for you. Of course, if you spent the $6799 on a 1DX, seeing as how it's good for at least 400k actuations, it'd be a good, lifetime investment that you would never regret. The 1DX, 1D4, and 5D3 are all fantastic. Whichever you buy, the 1DX or 1D4, you'll be happy. Be careful though about low-light with the 1D4, noise starts showing up pretty thick at ISO 6400.


----------



## charlesa (Jul 31, 2012)

Both good bodies, does the improved AF and speed justify the cost. Is your photographic work based on sports/wildlife/action mainly?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 31, 2012)

I have a 1D MK IV, and for wildlife, where you are focal length limited, the 1.3 crop plus ability to AF with TC's down to F/8 and even to f/11 with taped pins is valuable.
Resolution is about the same.
No doubt, the 1Dx is a supurb camera, but maybe not when you are focal length limited.
Get a little used 1D Mark IV plus a 5D Mark III for less than the cost of a D1 X.


----------



## M.ST (Jul 31, 2012)

I sell the 1D MK IV because the 1D X is faster and delivers a better image quality.

But I am shocked if Canon let die the APS-H-sensor. The 1.3 crop is perfect im combination with supertelephoto lenses and the AF 1D MK IV works with f/8 lenses. If dont have supertelephotos like the new, EF 400 II, EF 500 II or EF 600 II, stay or buy a 1D Mark IV.

I my opinion the 1D X is not the best of two worlds (1D MK IV, 1Ds Mark III). The 1D X is not a good replacement for the 1D MK IV or 1Ds Mark III. Image quality from ISO 50 to 200 is better in the 1Ds Mark III. To have a crop factor is better for sports, action and wildlife shots.


----------



## xROELOFx (Jul 31, 2012)

About 2 months ago I asked myself the very same question. Save a little more and get a 1DX or buy a 1D4. I finally bought the 1D4 as an upgrade to my 7D. The main reasons were that it was a hell lot cheaper (still it was a load of money), because of the f/8 autofocus, 1.3 crop, very good autofocus and I decided for my self I did not really need the newest technology. I'm not a pro, and I'm not a millionaire. What also helped me decide, was I got the chance to shoot half a day with a 1D mark III. This was such a great experience that I just couldn't wait any longer to upgrade my 7D.

Like you, I use the 1D4 for wildlife and birds. With a 500 f/4, the camera performs really really well. With the 1.4x extender it performs good too, although the AF is a bit slower. Using a 2.0x extender (and f/8 autofocus) is only really usefull for subjects that are moving very slowly, or not moving it all. The AF is pretty slow and hunts a lot. IQ takes a hit too. For close-up portraits of birds or other wildlife it is a really great option to have though!

For me the 1D4 was a great choice. If you're not shooting many small or shy subjects, you'll probably don't need the 1.3 crop and f/8 autofocus. A tough choice. Buying a 1D4 and a 5D mk. III would be a great option too, you would have the extra reach of the 1D4 and the fullframe sensor of the 5D3. Plus 2 camera's, so you can carry 2 different focal lengths with you.

By the way, what lens(es) do you use?
Good luck!

update:
If I had more money, I'd probably not sell the 1D4 but use it together with a 1DX. Use the 1D4 when I need the reach the 1DX cannot deliver, and use the 1DX for the rest 

another update:
Check this topic for a couple of beautiful examples Gary made with the 1DX. If you're able to get close to the animals or have a long 600mm lens, the extra reach of the 1D4 is not always needed. Although, I am not able to get these kind of shots of birds of prey. They always fly away when I cautiously try to approach them...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 31, 2012)

Exactly. The reason I have used the 1D Mark IV for sports is the speed, metering, and 1.3 crop factor. I actually love that camera and despite having the 1DX, I am keeping my 1D4 so that I can shoot outdoor sports with two cameras this year. For instance I'll have a football game at 1pm in the fall, and I have to run across the parking lot to do a soccer game (same university campus) at 4pm. You better believe I'll have both cameras for that day, with different lenses on each.


----------



## photophreek (Jul 31, 2012)

I struggled with much the same decision process. I decided to go with the 1D IV and add the 5D III this fall. The 1D IV has been an amazing upgrade to my 7d and all that I hoped it would be. However, I've very recently decided to not get the 5d III and supplement the 1D IV with the 1Dx. 

I like the 1D series features such as spot metering linked to AF points, AE and FE adjustments and the ergonomics of the 1D body to name only a few. In addition, the 1Dx offers better low-light shooting than the 1D IV, cleaner files, better IQ and better spot metering to AF point. The biggest advantage for me is better metering/exposure and face recognition tracking which the 1D IV does not have. The 1D IV has the same 63 zone metering system as the 5D III and 7D. BTW, the 1Dx does not have in-camera HDR. The 5D III has this feature. 

My only concern with the 1Dx is the loss of the crop factor. I've recently seen some aggressive crops of bird shots with the 1Dx and I was amazed at the amount of detail not lossed with the aggressive crop. 

The best of all worlds is to have both (I'm very fortunate I will have both), If I had to pick, I'd get the 1Dx and hold out for a used 1D IV if you can afford it. Don't get me wrong, the 1D IV is a very capable and superb camera which is why I'm keeping mine.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 31, 2012)

It is interesting that the new 600II was tested using the 1D4. Just read the article and look at the IQ of the pictures - you would wonder why anyone wants to upgrade from a 1D4 to a 1DX.

A 7D or 1D3 to a 1DX then maybe

I cant understand those that actually think that in real life the 1DX will be noticeably faster than the 1D4 or the IQ would be better until you get over iso6400. For normal shooting in normal light the 1DX will not be significantly better than the 1D4

If you want a low iso landscape body then the 1DS3 is still king


----------



## photophreek (Jul 31, 2012)

briansquibb:

My 1D IV has a permanent place in my bag and is going nowhere. I also agree that the IQ of the 1Dx is only slighly better than the 1D IV. I'm not getting the 1Dx just because of sharper files. The 5D III is slightly sharper than the 1Dx according to TDP. For me, high shutter speeds in low light shooting means high ISO which is one of the reasons why I'm getting the 1Dx. The 1D IV files start to suffer above 6400. 

I'm keeping the 1D IV, because my camera equipment fund is gone when I get the 1Dx and so is the notion of adding the 600 II. I'm sure that the images coming out of either camera coupled to my "old" 500mm f4 IS will be more than awesome.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 31, 2012)

photophreek said:


> briansquibb:
> 
> My 1D IV has a permanent place in my bag and is going nowhere. I also agree that the IQ of the 1Dx is only slighly better than the 1D IV. I'm not getting the 1Dx just because of sharper files. The 5D III is slightly sharper than the 1Dx according to TDP. For me, high shutter speeds in low light shooting means high ISO which is one of the reasons why I'm getting the 1Dx. The 1D IV files start to suffer above 6400.
> 
> I'm keeping the 1D IV, because my camera equipment fund is gone when I get the 1Dx and so is the notion of adding the 600 II. I'm sure that the images coming out of either camera coupled to my "old" 500mm f4 IS will be more than awesome.



I agree that the one good reason for the 1DX over the 1D4 is the high iso shooting as I mentioned

I am getting a 1DX so I can get higher iso ff as a partner to the 1DS3 which is realistically limited to iso 800. Whilst I could go 5DIII the lack of AF point metering and small body puts me off. Having a 1d4 and a 1DX beside each other opens up more options for sport shooting too


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 31, 2012)

Only problem is indoor sports. If I have the option of taking a 5D3 for a BACKUP camera, or a 1D4 for a backup, the 5D3 is going in the bag because I cannot afford high noise when most of my photos will be going as jpeg to a file and to a webmaster. So my indoor sports combo is going to be 1DX/5D3. Outdoors, you better believe it'll be the 1DX/1D4!


----------



## Secretariat (Aug 1, 2012)

If I may ask,how do the images of the 1D MKIV and 1DX compare to each other up to ISO 6400?Are the images of the !DX so much better than that of the 1D MKIV?
Thanks.


----------



## ReedZ (Aug 1, 2012)

Thanks Everyone 

I think I might be going for 1D4 due to price, it is still a good body and as far as the price is concern, it's half of what 1DX is currently. I could save some money as well.


----------



## Onodacops (Aug 1, 2012)

I'm in the same boat and I'm going to shop around for a used Mark IV.


----------



## Shawn L (Aug 1, 2012)

Secretariat said:


> If I may ask,how do the images of the 1D MKIV and 1DX compare to each other up to ISO 6400?Are the images of the !DX so much better than that of the 1D MKIV?



If you go here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx and scroll a bit down the page, you'll see a couple of images that allow you to compare the noise of different cameras at different ISO settings. For instance, at 6,400, there appears to be more color noise in the 1D MKIV than the 1DX.

I hope this helps.

Shawn L.


----------



## celliottuk (Aug 1, 2012)

I've got both. I was totally amazed by the 1D IV, it's a superb bit of kit...but then the 1D X came along. The 1D X's low light capability is outstanding, so for band shots which I do a lot of, it really does the job. I also do wildlife shots, and whilst I appreciate the speed that it focusses at, and the high ISO capability, I miss the extra "Reach" that I've lost going from a 1.3 crop, to full frame.


----------



## MarkWebbPhoto (Aug 1, 2012)

I still have my 1D4 as a backup and a second body for sporting events but I don't even use it anymore. The color of the 1D4 was always terrible and high-ISO always looked grainy even though I still used it all the way up to ISO 8000 at times. The 1DX is a huge improvement, especially in low-light AF and tracking subjects. The 1D4 was really "jumpy" and I would feel lucky to have a photo in focus. The 1DX really tracks subjects, I'm really liking the automatic point selection with iTR in AI-Servo mode (don't like it in single shot). I shot a sequence of a player running to third base and got 28 of the 30 photos in focus. Toward the end of the sequence, the base runner was completely behind the third baseman for at least 7 photos while he was sliding at third and the camera was able to detect the small bits of his blue jersey and hold focus. It was an amazing sequence and I have never had so many photos in focus before (used 300 f/2.8L IS). Oh and color is as good as the 5D series which makes me happy as well.


----------



## mw (Aug 2, 2012)

I took a leap of faith and got the 1D4. Absolutely love it. I do miss the FF capability. So I got a 5D2, in addition to the 1D4. Now, I have the best of both world and couldn't be happier.


----------



## Secretariat (Aug 2, 2012)

For those of you who went from the 1D MKIV to the 1DX,do you miss the 1/3 crop factor of the former,especially while shooting sports or wild life?The reason for me asking this question is because that is the only thing stopping me upgrading to the 1DX.
Thanks.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 2, 2012)

Secretariat said:


> For those of you who went from the 1D MKIV to the 1DX,do you miss the 1/3 crop factor of the former,especially while shooting sports or wild life?The reason for me asking this question is because that is the only thing stopping me upgrading to the 1DX.
> Thanks.



I shoot with both the 1D4 and the 1Ds3 - and yes I do notice the difference in crop factor. Basically I have to put on the next larger telephoto eg 400mm on the 1D4 becomes a 600 on the 1Ds3


----------



## MarkWebbPhoto (Aug 2, 2012)

Secretariat said:


> For those of you who went from the 1D MKIV to the 1DX,do you miss the 1/3 crop factor of the former,especially while shooting sports or wild life?The reason for me asking this question is because that is the only thing stopping me upgrading to the 1DX.
> Thanks.



I shoot weddings, journalism, and all kinds of sports. My biggest lens is the 300mm f/2.8L IS which allows me to get pretty much anything I need. The move from the 1D4 to the 1DX was a no-brainer for me. I would rather take the full frame camera any day over a crop sensor. I plan to use the 1.4 extender for football, baseball and soccer. It would be nice to have a 400mm lens but I don't have that kind of cash laying around.


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 3, 2012)

I really think this is the million dollar (or at least US$ 6,000) question. Once you go past a certain point in length, lenses become super expensive. You can then use extenders as MWP mentioned but then questions re AF and IQ come up. Even a 1.3x crop helps with the reach, and the 1D 4 is about half the price, and you can use extenders on that. If the 1D X had a lot more megapixels you could combat the lack of reach by cropping more, but then you would probably lose out on fps. It is an interesting debate, but the quality of images from the 1D X do look outstanding, and as long as you have lenses that work best (is it groups A-F or something) then you should be on to a winner.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> I really think this is the million dollar (or at least US$ 6,000) question. Once you go past a certain point in length, lenses become super expensive. You can then use extenders as MWP mentioned but then questions re AF and IQ come up. Even a 1.3x crop helps with the reach, and the 1D 4 is about half the price, and you can use extenders on that. If the 1D X had a lot more megapixels you could combat the lack of reach by cropping more, but then you would probably lose out on fps. It is an interesting debate, but the quality of images from the 1D X do look outstanding, and as long as you have lenses that work best (is it groups A-F or something) then you should be on to a winner.



Even if the 1DX had 21 mp like the 1Ds3 or 5DII, you could crop fairly far. 18 I don't know.


----------



## celliottuk (Aug 3, 2012)

I have both the 1D IV, and the 1D X. I started life on a 7D. when I went from the 7D to the 1D IV, I missed the 1.6 crop factor as I went to 1.3, but soon got over it as the IQ was so good on the IV that I could easily crop and still end up with better IQ.
The same is starting to be true as I transition from the IV to the X.
I did some test shots at a Falcon centre. Same birds flying, same lenses, then crop the shots to give the same "Apparent size" in the final image. The focussing ability, and the fact that I can shoot at a higher shutter speed, due to better noise performance of the 1DX is so good compared to the IV and the 7, that even if the number of pixels is actually less, the apparent sharpness and detail is greater-if that makes sense


----------



## Secretariat (Aug 3, 2012)

celliottuk said:


> I have both the 1D IV, and the 1D X. I started life on a 7D. when I went from the 7D to the 1D IV, I missed the 1.6 crop factor as I went to 1.3, but soon got over it as the IQ was so good on the IV that I could easily crop and still end up with better IQ.
> The same is starting to be true as I transition from the IV to the X.
> I did some test shots at a Falcon centre. Same birds flying, same lenses, then crop the shots to give the same "Apparent size" in the final image. The focussing ability, and the fact that I can shoot at a higher shutter speed, due to better noise performance of the 1DX is so good compared to the IV and the 7, that even if the number of pixels is actually less, the apparent sharpness and detail is greater-if that makes sense




In which upgrade was there a bigger improvement,from 7D to 1D MKIV or from 1D MKIV to 1DX?


----------



## celliottuk (Aug 3, 2012)

7D to ID IV was like going from a Ford Focus to a Ferrari, night and day, black and white-pick your own analogy.
Going from the 1D IV to the X was more like an extreme tuning pack put on the Ferrari. Take something that is already good, and make it better.


----------



## dengor (Aug 3, 2012)

I`m wonder why nobody talk about only 5(five) 2.8 focus points in new 1dx (5D3) compared to almost all in 1D4. Is it no matter to all? What is the diffrerence in real life? For me a so big and important.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 3, 2012)

dengor said:


> I`m wonder why nobody talk about only 5(five) 2.8 focus points in new 1dx (5D3) compared to almost all in 1D4. Is it no matter to all? What is the diffrerence in real life? For me a so big and important.



The five in the center of the 1Dx array are double Cross type points. A type of AF point that only exists in the canon lineup as of today and is only in the 5D3 and 1Dx.

The 1Dx AF has 5 Special Double cross type, 36 Standard Cross type, plus 20 Standard AF points. All of these are active with f/2.8 lenses or faster.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 3, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> dengor said:
> 
> 
> > I`m wonder why nobody talk about only 5(five) 2.8 focus points in new 1dx (5D3) compared to almost all in 1D4. Is it no matter to all? What is the diffrerence in real life? For me a so big and important.
> ...



What do the double cross AF points bring over the standard cross types?


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 3, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > dengor said:
> ...



Standard cross type AF checks contrast vertically and horizontally. Double cross type is two of those stacked and checking contrast diagonally also. Its pretty good, It catches focus in very low contrast subjects unlike my 5Dc did and alittle better that my 7D's standard Crosstype points. It's a good improvement for a high-speed prime user.

It also allows canon to charge us more monies. ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 3, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Many thanks - would this be relevant to the problem posted about the highspeed shooting in low light?


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 3, 2012)

I suppose it could be relevant. The 61 Point AF is the best AF ever from canon, Unless you need F/8 AF. 

Then W/o a doubt, its the best Low Light AF I've ever used from canon.


----------



## dengor (Aug 3, 2012)

I meant precision of 2.8 have only 5 points. Isn`t it? Only 5 from 61. In 1d4 was 39 from 45.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

dengor said:


> I meant precision of 2.8 have only 5 points. Isn`t it? Only 5 from 61. In 1d4 was 39 from 45.



I don't think that's correct. Hang on, let me check my manual, but I believe according to Bryan's review, this isn't correct.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 3, 2012)

dengor said:


> I meant precision of 2.8 have only 5 points. Isn`t it? Only 5 from 61. In 1d4 was 39 from 45.



The 1D4 has 39 Standard Cross-type points. The 1DX has 5 double crosstype plus 36 standard crosstype points plus 20 normal points. Its better that the 1D4 in AF points.


----------



## dengor (Aug 3, 2012)

"New 61-Point High Density Reticular AF including 41 cross-type AF points with f/4.0 lens support* including 5 dual diagonal AF points (sensitive to f/2.8*)" according the Canon USA. ....AND.... "New 45-point Area AF sensor including 39 cross-type AF points with f/2.8 support" for 1d4. What is the profit from 61 points if you get 5.6 in most of them?


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 3, 2012)

dengor said:


> "New 61-Point High Density Reticular AF including 41 cross-type AF points with f/4.0 lens support* including 5 dual diagonal AF points (sensitive to f/2.8*)" according the Canon USA. ....AND.... "New 45-point Area AF sensor including 39 cross-type AF points with f/2.8 support" for 1d4.



Yes. This means at F/4 you'll have 41 standard crosstype points. The double crosstype points aren't fully activated but still functioning.

When your at f/2.8, you get 36 standard Crosstype AF points and the 5 center points become Double crosstype, an added bonus.

With the 1DX, you can have F/4 and still have 41 Crosstype points.

With the 1D4, you'll need a F/2.8 lens to have full crosstype support.

Have you ever used the 61 Point AF system? Because its brilliant. 8)


----------



## dengor (Aug 3, 2012)

What is "*standard* AF points" in your mind?


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 3, 2012)

dengor said:


> What is "*standard* AF points" in your mind?



Standard AF points check contrast Vertically. F/5.6 Active

Crosstype AF points check Contrast Horizontally and Vertically. F/4 Active

Double Crosstype AF points check Contrast Horizontally,Vertically, and Diagonally. F/2.8 Active

Here is a diagram if you dont fully understand.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-autofocus.htm


----------



## dengor (Aug 3, 2012)

When you at 2.8 you have 36 points with 5.6 accuracy, 20 points with 4.0 accuracy and 5 points with 2.8 accuracy, right? And if you try to shoot at any point except 5 in center you get in roulette at close distances.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 3, 2012)

dengor said:


> When you at 2.8 you have 36 points with 5.6 accuracy, 20 points with 4.0 accuracy and 5 points with 2.8 accuracy, right? And if you try to shoot at any point except 5 in center you get in roulette at close distances.


----------



## dengor (Aug 3, 2012)

What is wrong? Do you understand the word "accuracy"? All points works at 2.8, but AF accuracy is different.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 3, 2012)

dengor said:


> What is wrong? Do you understand the word "accuracy"? All points works at 2.8, but AF accuracy is different.



I don't think you have the definitions/understanding. DOUBLE Cross type is different than cross type. You have more cross types in the 1DX than the 1D4. That's the whole point of the camera. It's much better in AF.


----------

