Attention 1DX users: Is there a noticeable difference in image quality from the 5D ii to the 1DX?

I know focusing, low light performance, etc are better, but is the image quality any different?

Edwinrg said:

I know focusing, low light performance, etc are better, but is the image quality any different?

Click to expand...

I haven't noticed any. Main difference for me is more keepers.

nope never noticed anything..I don't pixel peep but they look the same to me.

Edwinrg said:

I know focusing, low light performance, etc are better, but is the image quality any different?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. 1Dx has better files than 5D2 (and 5D3) in terms of WB/color balance, consistency and of course way better shadow details. Just because they look the same out of the cam from a given scene doesn't mean they are.

The cameras use different sensors, so the images are different. The 1DX has better low light performance, improved IQ, better AF performance and better overall exposure. I cannot recall mine ever getting WB wrong, exposure is nearly spot on 100% of the time.

The 1DX is faster and has a bigger buffer which can mean you get a shot others miss. The 1DX is built stronger and is better sealed.

Whether it is worth the extra $ over the 5DIII is another matter.

Edwinrg said:

I know focusing, low light performance, etc are better, but is the image quality any different?

Click to expand...

Fewer pixels in 1DX images. You can push 1DX files a little more in post, but proper exposures out of either camera look about the same, except for the lack of pixels in the 1DX. A poor exposure out of the 5DMkII is difficult to save, because of the read noise (AKA banding). 1DX files are a little easier to work with. If you don't need 12 FPS with focus, a built in portrait grip and some of the other higher end features, the 1DX is a waste of money. The 5DMkIII has nearly the same focus subsystem at half the price.

Anyone asking this type of question - i.e is this camera or that camera better than the 1DX is clearly missing the point of the 1DX and most certainly has never used any of the 1D series cameras, they are designed to operate in the fastest moving environments and provide focus lock and frame rate where all other "normal" cameras cannot. Of course the image quality is no better than the 5D2 or the the 6D for that matter but what sets this camera apart is that it can get you tack sharp images in extreme circumstances - think shooting fast moving objects in a water housing i.e surfers for example or key moments in a sports game where other cameras wouldn't have even achieved focus let alone already bagged 20 frames.

Buy a 1DX if you need incredible image quality under any (almost any) circumstances, buy a 5d3 if you want incredible image quality in a lesser extreme environment and buy a 6D (or 5D2) if you want incredible image quality from slow moving circumstances/objects.

Simple.

Dan

Ultimately, the sensor in the 5DII is going to produce images similar to the 1Dx, and in most situations, indistinguishable. People get caught up in charts and specs, where most measurable differences are negligible in the real world. Heck, DxO would have everyone believe that Nikon is light years ahead of Canon, and that Canon cameras are incapable. The reality is that the differences or "advancements" are really only noticeable when one pushes the limits of any of these sensors, in ways that most photographers generally don't. That being said, you will find that the higher iso's are noticeably cleaner in the 1Dx (3200+). If you're pushing the shadows in post, you also find more forgiveness with the 1Dx files. For all other situations (95% of the time) the two sensors will be comparable.

The 1Dx isn't about the sensor improvements much as it's about the camera improvements and features.

Edwinrg said:

I know focusing, low light performance, etc are better, but is the image quality any different?

Click to expand...

The last file format and output device always clips the top right off the image quality. I think the images from the two camera would look identical in my processing environment and the final prints.

A common quote from my customers are these are the best images they've ever seen, so while it may not be true they are towards the upper end of what they've seen.

I believe the printer is the limiting factor, the majority of what goes out are 8 x 10s but occasionally someone will do a run of 20 x 30s. When they do I unfold my full size (20 x 30) pricing print on foam board so they are looking at the expected image quality. I see faults but by the time you view at normal viewing distance they are gone.

That said, a IDX would blow the doors off the image quality in my shooting environment where frame rate rules. You don't get to pose a 1300 lb animal at 30 mph, you capture them in stride with a burst and choose the best composition. My predecessor through he'd freeze motion with flash, so he really had to get lucky. I brought out a low light rig and select the best from a burst with luck playing a much smaller role.

I agree about these differences and I find the 1DX RAW files easier to work with in pp. Notwithstanding having less megapixels I also like the look of the 1DX images vs. the 5D II & III images.

--
It's not what you look at, but what you see when you look.