Posted by David Mayhew on March 9, 2012 at 10:14 AM
So I've been holding out for a 2nd camera and waiting on the release of the 1Dx to upgrade from my 1Ds III. But I seriously think that Canon has missed the mark on the 1Dx, unless you shoot sports.
A side by side comparison of the 2 shows that as a landscape photographer the 1Dx is not worth the extra $3300:
5D v 1Dx
22.3Mpix v 18Mpix
6 fps v 12 fps (Raw)
Same photo diode (1Dx lists 2 stop sensitivity, assume same for 5D III?)
Both weather proofed
Same processor, though 2 in the 1Dx makes it faster
100-25600 ISO v 100-51200 std setting
Same 61 pt AF
So to summarize the 5D III has more megapixels.
1 Dx is faster and has the ultrasonic wave motion sensor cleaner and lasts for 400,000 cycles.
Did I miss anything? I was initially of the understanding that the 1Dx had some new sensor configuration that would make the images sharper and higher quality, but seems to be the same CMOS format.
All I am looking for is less noise at high ISO and the sensitivity (ie more exposure latitude in post production.
What do you think?
Posted by Dottie Short on March 9, 2012 at 12:05 PM
* Your should add birds to the sports category for the need for a 1Dx.
* Fewer Mpix probably means larger pixs thus resulting in less noise.
I've just started my comparison too.
Posted by David Mayhew on March 9, 2012 at 12:12 PM
Good points Dottie. The ISO on 1Dx does only seem to be 1 exposure greater and the 5D III test exposures on dpreview.com look good to 12800 if not 25600. A vast improvement on the ISO 400 limitation I have on my 1Ds III.
Since I sell large prints I think the Mpix is also important to me, though not willing to jump to Nikon D800 for the additional lens costs.
Can't argue with you too much, but I would include some wildlife shooters in with the sports photographers you mention. I can't really justify the extra $3300 for the Dx and am leaning toward the 5D Mark III, but the lower FPS on the latter is a bit of a hang-up. Honestly, now I'm kinda hoping to find a Mark IV on the used market instead.
I agree with you Max. I myself have been looking instead for some deals on the Mark lV, but I think most people won't let 'em go, yet, they seem to love them.
I agree David, for Landscapes only the 5D3 sounds like the better choice. As a wildlife and landscape photographer I was at first thinking to replace my 1d4 with the 1DX. Then I learnt about the 5d3 and now I am more inclined to keep my 1d4 and upgrade my 5d2 fro a 5d3. The 5d3 will certainly be a better second body for wildlife now with the improved AF, ISO and fps. This seems to me the most practical and economical way to go. However, I will wait with any purchase until both bodies have been out on the market and properly reviewed by nature photographers .
Posted by David Kjaer on March 30, 2012 at 10:53 AM
I understand that although the AF system in both cameras looks the same, I have been told that the additional processor in the 1DX is dedicated to the AF system and also recognises colours and as a result will be better than the 5D MkIII. That said it looks as though the AF system in the 5D MkIII should be much better than that in the MkII and good enough for birds in flight.
Discussion
6 repliesA side by side comparison of the 2 shows that as a landscape photographer the 1Dx is not worth the extra $3300:
5D v 1Dx
22.3Mpix v 18Mpix
6 fps v 12 fps (Raw)
Same photo diode (1Dx lists 2 stop sensitivity, assume same for 5D III?)
Both weather proofed
Same processor, though 2 in the 1Dx makes it faster
100-25600 ISO v 100-51200 std setting
Same 61 pt AF
So to summarize the 5D III has more megapixels.
1 Dx is faster and has the ultrasonic wave motion sensor cleaner and lasts for 400,000 cycles.
Did I miss anything? I was initially of the understanding that the 1Dx had some new sensor configuration that would make the images sharper and higher quality, but seems to be the same CMOS format.
All I am looking for is less noise at high ISO and the sensitivity (ie more exposure latitude in post production.
What do you think?
* Fewer Mpix probably means larger pixs thus resulting in less noise.
I've just started my comparison too.
Since I sell large prints I think the Mpix is also important to me, though not willing to jump to Nikon D800 for the additional lens costs.
Max