Opinion on the 5d Mark III vs. the 1-D X

I currently own the 5d Mark II and have been very happy with the camera. I just sold my 7d which was my back up camera. It had some nicer/better features over the 5d II but I still trended towards the 5d. I do mainly portraits/events/weddings of all types with some sports mixed in. I value dpreview readers opinion and wanted to ask whether you think the extra investment in dollars is worth it to purchase the 1d X over the new 5d Mark III? Significant difference in price but it appears many share some of the key features. Thoughts? Thanks, Meyer
http://www.meyergladstonephotography.com

The 5D3 will comfortably do everything you want except for sports. 6 fps is probably managable for some casual shooting but you sound like you make money from this so you'll need something faster to provide decent coverage of sports events. You could buy a 7D to add to it.

I shoot a similar combination of subject matter. The 1dx does everything the 5d3 does and then adds 14 full frames per sec + possibly the best AF & metering on the planet, bar none (on paper). If it delivers these specs it will almost certainly bury the Nikon D4 and virtually everything else. The premium is steep but if truth be told, I'm tired of limitations...so, this time, I'm damning the arithmetic and going for the very best.
Brgds

5D3 is a better move, however, you should have kept the 7D as a backup for its frame rate and reach. You can buy more with $6800, 5D3 + lenses + acessesories.

agree and I am just a hobbiest...the 6800 dollar question is when will it be released?

ok55 said:

The 5D3 will comfortably do everything you want except for sports. 6 fps is probably managable for some casual shooting but you sound like you make money from this so you'll need something faster to provide decent coverage of sports events.

Click to expand...

This seems like a huge over simplification. Why is 8 FPS enough, but 6 FPS not? Should you not demand 10 FPS and accept nothing less? Did anyone succeed in covering a sports event with 4 FPS? I suspect that they did.

It is just a crap shoot - if you see action and launch a burst of shots, the odds of you capturing the absolute ideal moment is a little higher at 8 FPS than 6 FPS. That is all.

There is nothing absolute about say 8 FPS for sport shooting. More FPS is useful, but AF, IS and low light capability are important too.

dylan walsh said:

ok55 said:

The 5D3 will comfortably do everything you want except for sports. 6 fps is probably managable for some casual shooting but you sound like you make money from this so you'll need something faster to provide decent coverage of sports events.

Click to expand...

This seems like a huge over simplification. Why is 8 FPS enough, but 6 FPS not? Should you not demand 10 FPS and accept nothing less? Did anyone succeed in covering a sports event with 4 FPS? I suspect that they did.

It is just a crap shoot - if you see action and launch a burst of shots, the odds of you capturing the absolute ideal moment is a little higher at 8 FPS than 6 FPS. That is all.

There is nothing absolute about say 8 FPS for sport shooting. More FPS is useful, but AF, IS and low light capability are important too.

Click to expand...

Oversimplification...? Hardly! Of course AF, IS and low light capability are important (and assumed as a given here) but so is fps. How many sports pros do you see covering serious football matches with 4 or 6fps cameras today?

Just try shooting the service action of a serious tennis player (like Federer or Nadal). Your 6fps camera will be lucky to catch three pictures in the sequence. OK for casual shooting but not for the serious enthusiast or the pro. A 7d will give 4 at least and fill out the sequence better. It will also give you a more decent chance of catching the exiting ball in the frame. Ideally though you'd be looking for 10 plus fps, which is what most pros would do. The 1dx (or D4) would be fantastic. 4fps would be a disaster.

This is just tennis. Try soccer. Fully one third extra shots would be available in your bursts (assuming bursts of equal time duration) with a 7d than the 6fps camera. For casual shooting the 6fps would probably suffice but if the idea is to cover the match effectively the something faster is necessary. An entire match at 4fps would be a disaster. The 7d has a decent AF system and does a reasonable job but to be frank a few more fps would be even more useful for certain frenetic sequences.

You might want to have a look at Marianne Oelund's website [ http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/ ] to get an idea how intense a serious sports pro's work can get. According to her some typical numbers from her sports photography business are:
"At least 8fps burst speed required
About 100 frames taken per minute of action
2000-3000 frames per hour of event
Up to 15 event hours per day frenetic serious sports can be."

[ http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=40819774&page=6]

The 5D3 is a fantasic camera, no doubt, so is the D800; but their frame rates are simply not fast enough for serious sports coverage.
Brgds

I shoot weddings and portraits. 5D3 is perfect for my needs. We need a little bit of FPS. 3-4 is doable, but 6 fps is nice and definitely will help in some situations like dancing and catching the perfect moment of a laugh or some reception games people play. Anything over 6fps will probably be overkill.

The AF of the 5D3 is supposedly very similar to the 1Dx so there's probably only a marginal improvement there.

The 1Dx has better weather sealing and build quality, but I really don't think those things are needed for weddings.

One benefit of the 5D3 over the 1Dx is the weight. That's probably the main factor why I choose the 5D3 over the 1Dx... oh yeah and the price.

What about IQ? How much of a differance is there? I nice thing about the 1Dx is that it does it all very well. I have a 1D MkIV so it's even a thougher chioce if choosing the 1Dx. Would an extra 6 Megapixels make that much of a differance?
--
Jim

Randplaty said:

Randplaty said:

The AF of the 5D3 is supposedly very similar to the 1Dx so there's probably only a marginal improvement there.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Er...not quite. 100,000 pixel RGB metering in 252 zones is linked to the AF system so significantly better tracking and AI Servo AF. In Canon's own words, the EOS intelligent Tracking and Recognition AF (EOS iTR AF) system 'works not only with the colour of subjects but also with faces. Because the AE system can detect the presence of a face within the frame, the subject can be tracked across the frame accurately and quickly without having to change the focus point continually. If there are multiple faces within the frame, then by manually selecting an AF point you can ensure the correct face is focused initially and then tracked in subsequent frames.'

As for metering, 'by using the colour data and information from the 61 AF points, the EOS-1D X is able to detect where in the frame the subject is and then bias the exposure accordingly to ensure the best exposure setting. This provides more stable and accurate exposures than those possible with the EOS-1D Mark IV.'

Also, 'The colour and face detection system is also used in the E-TTL II flash metering algorithm. By locating a face within the frame, the EOS-1D X can accurately adjust the flash output to ensure the face is correctly exposed, while ignoring reflective objects within the frame that may otherwise lead to an inaccurate flash exposure.'

Like I said earlier, the best there is...on paper...

Mighty Mouse said:

What about IQ? How much of a differance is there? I nice thing about the 1Dx is that it does it all very well. I have a 1D MkIV so it's even a thougher chioce if choosing the 1Dx. Would an extra 6 Megapixels make that much of a differance?
--
Jim

Click to expand...

The 1D4's a fantastic machine...but the 1DX, going by its specs, should be on a different level. Canon says 'the full-frame sensor has pixels that are 21% larger than in previous EOS cameras to allow for more light to be captured, with less likelihood of motion blur, plus...DIGIC 5+ processors [that] offer two stops of noise benefit over previous EOS DSLRs, as well as a standard ISO range of 100 to 51,200 (expandable down to 50 and up to 204,800).'

[ http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/eos_1d_x_cmos_sensor_explained.do]

hahah, sounds good to me... but the OP doesn't shoot sports... so that's what I meant. If AF is a top priority, yes it'd be a big deal.

ok55 said:

Randplaty said:

ok55 said:

The AF of the 5D3 is supposedly very similar to the 1Dx so there's probably only a marginal improvement there.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Er...not quite. 100,000 pixel RGB metering in 252 zones is linked to the AF system so significantly better tracking and AI Servo AF. In Canon's own words, the EOS intelligent Tracking and Recognition AF (EOS iTR AF) system 'works not only with the colour of subjects but also with faces. Because the AE system can detect the presence of a face within the frame, the subject can be tracked across the frame accurately and quickly without having to change the focus point continually. If there are multiple faces within the frame, then by manually selecting an AF point you can ensure the correct face is focused initially and then tracked in subsequent frames.'

As for metering, 'by using the colour data and information from the 61 AF points, the EOS-1D X is able to detect where in the frame the subject is and then bias the exposure accordingly to ensure the best exposure setting. This provides more stable and accurate exposures than those possible with the EOS-1D Mark IV.'

Also, 'The colour and face detection system is also used in the E-TTL II flash metering algorithm. By locating a face within the frame, the EOS-1D X can accurately adjust the flash output to ensure the face is correctly exposed, while ignoring reflective objects within the frame that may otherwise lead to an inaccurate flash exposure.'

Like I said earlier, the best there is...on paper...

Click to expand...