5d3 or 1dx...?

S

stevewestern

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,472
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, so most of you will say 1dx with very good reason, but just why ?

I have a 5d2, could just about afford a 5d3 and if I went really silly my credit card could get me a 1dx. I doubt I could afford to pay it off in a hurry though !

However, an upgrade is a rare event in my life, and being in debt isn't the issue here as both will put me there.
What I am curious about is the differences between the two in real life, not at the extremes of low light, though I do take a lot of pictures in low light. Speed isn't such a big deal, but I take a lot of pictures in school classrooms and autumn is already giving us less light in the afternoons so speed of focus is to some extent.
So, any of you who have had the chance to use both - can you give any opinions on how much better one is over the other and why.
I am not a pro, but do earn a little from my pictures. I get good results from my 5d2 but am finding that I am missing a fair few down to focus errors (hey, could just be me at fault..) and am wondering what to aim for/dream about next.
I am leaning heavily towards the 5d3 as I could just about afford it and from what I have read it will do all I want, if not way more. However, given how bodies depreciate there is a temptation to go for the big one.
I do shoot a few sports days and have a lot of OOF shots, use ISO 1600-3200 a fair bit and would love to use even higher.

So, any thoughts ?
 
If going on the card....keep the 5D2.

Going to the 3 doesn't warrant the credit and the 1D's are too big size wise to me.
 
5DIII in low light is pretty impressive!
Here's a link to a post describing a shot taken in stupidly low light
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4980805&postcount=1314

When I took the above shot I was using both the 5DII and 5DIII.
The evening had got to the point where the light was so bad that the 5DII would not lock focus even with the centre point without looking for some hard contrast, then recompose.
I swapped the 5dIII onto the same wide lens (50mm f1.4) and it was a little sluggish compared to normal, but it locked on solid every time even using the edge points.

Later on when they dimmed the lights even further, I strapped a Petzl head torch to my head and carried on.
It's an old torch and not that bright. It certainly wasn't dazzling the people I was trying to shoot.
It worked very well indeed - the 5DIII focus in extremely low light has proved astonishing!

Given the experiences I've just described, I'm curious how much better the 1DX will be.
I expect it's going to be a lot faster, but low light performance not the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies so far all -
drb5 - Size doesn't matter as I find myself saying all too often !
As for credit - If not for the beloved card I wouldn't have got my first or any camera since ..!
Not sure the 6D brings anything new to the dilemma for me either.

However, DuncanDisorderly, your picture says a lot !
Lets wait to see what the 1Dx gang have to say about this !
 
6D is hyped as being able to focus in low light otherwise I think wait and see for the reviews.
1DX is a lot of money and heavy because it's solid and fast for professionals who don't get a chance to set up a shot or the opportunity to take it again.
So if "speed isn't a big deal" why spend the extra couple of grand. Not that the 5D3 is necessarily slow - by all accounts it sounds great.
 
The 1Dx is a lot heavier and bulkier than the 5D3 so that might be worth taking into consideration. Having said that I do prefer the feel of the 1D series cameras in my hand than the 7D/5D ones. With a longer lens they feel much more balanced and comfortable.

I have a 1Dx on order mainly because I shoot sports and aviation. If I didn't I think I would go with the 5D3 and spend the extra couple of grand on a really nice lens or two.
 
I have used both.

I was in a church which was really dark and the 5D3 had no trouble focussing. Of course there is noise but it pretty much disappears in print.

ISO 25600

p1132901186-4.jpg


And you can also using all the focus points (which I believe is an 'issue' on the 5D2).

6FPS is no slouch on the 5D3 either. Nice and light as well. If you would need a grip then it becomes similar in weight to a 1D body but gives flexibility to have it on or not.

Now - having used a 1Dx as well. What a beast it is and for sports the 12fps in short bursts in flippin marvellous.

So if you would need the 12fps regularly AND/OR the extra weather sealing then go for the 1Dx, otherwise the 5D3 is awesome.
 
My 5d2 is gripped and I have grown to like the feel of it.
A 5d3 would be likely to have a grip too, so would weigh in at close to a 1Dx.

All that said, the speed and weather proofing isn't such a big issue for my use.
Looks like I may have saved myself from financial ruin unless someone can persuade me otherwise !
 
never felt a 'grip' added on felt right in my hand.

1 series all the way, to me the camera feeling right when im working is as important as how it performs (which the dx does very well at in that respect)
 
What's wrong with the 5D MkII that's stopping you from getting shots?
 
gman said:
What's wrong with the 5D MkII that's stopping you from getting shots?
Click to expand...

Nothings wrong with it, but as I said, I do miss shots due to focusing error and speed and I hear that the high ISO performance of both the 5d3 and the 1dx is better than the 5d2 and it would be wonderful not to need flash so often, especially during school plays and assembly-type events.
The 5d2 is the best camera I have even used or held and I am just curious what improvements an upgrade would offer !
 
bigrob said:
I have used both.

I was in a church which was really dark and the 5D3 had no trouble focussing. Of course there is noise but it pretty much disappears in print.

ISO 25600

And you can also using all the focus points (which I believe is an 'issue' on the 5D2).

6FPS is no slouch on the 5D3 either. Nice and light as well. If you would need a grip then it becomes similar in weight to a 1D body but gives flexibility to have it on or not.

Now - having used a 1Dx as well. What a beast it is and for sports the 12fps in short bursts in flippin marvellous.

So if you would need the 12fps regularly AND/OR the extra weather sealing then go for the 1Dx, otherwise the 5D3 is awesome.
Click to expand...

Very interested in knowing how big you printed that and the level of detail still present given the noise. Would appreciate your thoughts on that.
 
Pradeep

Only printed it at 9x6. Pm me your addresss if yiu want and I'll pop it in the post. No need to return it.
 
stevewestern said:
Nothings wrong with it, but as I said, I do miss shots due to focusing error and speed and I hear that the high ISO performance of both the 5d3 and the 1dx is better than the 5d2 and it would be wonderful not to need flash so often, especially during school plays and assembly-type events.
The 5d2 is the best camera I have even used or held and I am just curious what improvements an upgrade would offer !
Click to expand...

You won't miss shots due to the AF with either the 1Dx or the 5D3.

Everything you want it for points to the 5D3. The silent shutter mode (or quite shutter should I say) would also be great for the school plays and assemblies.

Oh yes and no need for flash either.
 
bigrob - As you say the 5d3 does seem to be the one for me in every way, but I can't help but wonder in that boys-toys sort of way...!
 
Honestly, you'd be absolutely mental to load up a card with debt to get a camera.

You've already got a good one.
 
Trust me mate - the 5DIII is a great camera but it's not as iconic as the 5DII was. In fact, I've said before that it's a 5DII with a few tweaks and not a revolution in it's own right. If you can't get the shot with what you have then upgrading the camera and getting into serious debt isn't going to change much.

To put it in perspective, if I went out for a days photography and inadvertently left the 5DIII at home, I wouldn't go back for it if I had the 5DII with me already.
 
stevewestern said:
Nothings wrong with it, but as I said, I do miss shots due to focusing error and speed and I hear that the high ISO performance of both the 5d3 and the 1dx is better than the 5d2 and it would be wonderful not to need flash so often, especially during school plays and assembly-type events.
The 5d2 is the best camera I have even used or held and I am just curious what improvements an upgrade would offer !
Click to expand...

They must be moving fast in those school plays for you to miss focus! lol If this is your main area of photography and definitely need the AF upgrade then I don't see the point in requiring all the pro level features of the 1DX and the 5DMkIII would be more than ample surely?
 
gman said:
They must be moving fast in those school plays for you to miss focus! lol If this is your main area of photography and definitely need the AF upgrade then I don't see the point in requiring all the pro level features of the 1DX and the 5DMkIII would be more than ample surely?
Click to expand...

It can get quite dark on stage and lead to focusing issues, they will hardly have 'west end' lighting setups.

Agree that a 5D3 would be the better option here.
 
5DIII will always be a 'better option' if money is no issue. All I'm suggesting is the 5DII would not be sniffed at by many (and is a very capable camera) if money was tight.;)
 
Yes all my comments were based on a comparison between the 2 cameras and nothing to do with his own personal finances.

That's entirely up to the OP and not me.
 
How about a photo of a cute dog with the 5D3 to sway you that way :D

p1134474078-5.jpg
 
Cute dogs don't sway me in any way - sorry Rob !
School stages are dark, lighting is virtually nil given that it is a small primary school in a poor area and kids do move pretty fast at times both on stage and in class.
The 5d3 could be bought with very little actual cash outlay as I have the 5d2 and a lens or two to sell so it does seem like the way to go, but I did start off just wondering what the 1dx might add and to some extent still am...!
I know it would be silly to get into debt but that hasn't ever stopped me before (and to be honest I wouldn't be putting it on a card for more than a few days so no big interest worries) but having had a 5d for 2 years then a 5d2 for a similar time I do wonder if going for the 1dx will leave me with a camera that I won't be trading in in a couple of years with a big hit financially.
FourRing Circus's comment about the 5d3 not being a major leap over the 5d2 seems slightly at odds with other posts - maybe the 1dx is the way to go..?
I know the 5d2 is a fantastic camera and I can get the shot most of the time but faster focusing, a little less noise, higher usable ISO etc would help !
 
Last edited:
the biggest seller of the 1dx over the 5d3 is:

the digic+ 4 chip that powered the entire 1d4 is used soley for focusing in the 1dx. plus it has another 2 digic+ 5's for all the other ****. the 5d3 has 1 digic+5
 
I still think the 5D3 is the way to go (cute dog or not) even though the 1Dx offers more.

Do you need the 12Fps of the 1Dx?

5D3 under lousy hall lights

ISO 6400, F2.8, SS1/1600

p1134806564-6.jpg


1Dx under the same lights

ISO 16000, F2.8, SS 1/1250

p1107956738-6.jpg
 
Steve, whereabouts in the country do you live?

Maybe someone on here with a 5D3 or 1Dx who lives close by could meet up with you for a little test/play and see what results you get.
 
Again, many thanks to all for the replies !

Ploddles - I am in Cornwall, near st Austell but don't know anyone down here.
Bigrob - your pictures are going a long way to persuading me to be sensible - thanks for posting them !
I don't need 12fps, and as you said in an earlier the silent/quiet shutter option is a great feature of the 5d3.
 
If you're a professional shooter and cannot comfortably afford to upgrade then please don't do it.

I have a 4 year old 1D MkIII and a 5D MkII. Compared to my 1D the AF on the 5D for sports is very poor. No unusable, just not fast or accurate enough most times.

My 1D still delivers and for my serious amateur use is a great camera. Would I like a 5D MkIII or a 1DX, Hell yeah! But I would not personally put myself into debt to own one.
 
Organic said:
If you're a professional shooter and cannot comfortably afford to upgrade then please don't do it.

I have a 4 year old 1D MkIII and a 5D MkII. Compared to my 1D the AF on the 5D for sports is very poor. No unusable, just not fast or accurate enough most times.

My 1D still delivers and for my serious amateur use is a great camera. Would I like a 5D MkIII or a 1DX, Hell yeah! But I would not personally put myself into debt to own one.
Click to expand...

+1

the 1dmk3 is a great camera too, and with 2.8 lenses and an IS lens so you can drop the shutter a little, 3200 still gives great great images in very low light, 6400 is a bit ugly but if you're a good photographer and take good looking images then a little bit of noise isn't going to ruin your shot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top