New 5D3 or used 1D4?

If the same price which would you go for, used 1D4 or new 5D3?

  • 1D4

    Votes: 5 20.8%

  • 5D3

    Votes: 19 79.2%
  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
Big Andy

Big Andy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,652
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
As the heading say which would you choose. I could buy a new 5D3 or go for a low shutter count used 1D4 for similar money. I mainly use the camera for landscape or nature photography so wide lenses and slow shutter or long lenses and fast shutter will be used.
 
5D3, better iso performance, more mp for cropping and a better AF system. Sure the burst rate isnt anywhere near as fast, but for everything else the 5D3 is a better buy.
 
I've voted 5D3 and I'll tell you why, you'll get more at the wider end thanks to not being a 1.3x crop of the 1D4 but of course you'll loose out at the long end, but the increased resolution should allow you to crop in an regain that effective crop with little to no loss in comparison to the mk4 plus ISO wise from samples I've seen they're on a par, you'll not quite have the FPS but still more than adequate

Finally you've go the full advantage of warranties etc of the new purchase
 
Hi Andy

I have both bodies, the MkIV ive owned for 2 1/2 years and the 5D MkIII for approx 8 months.

When I first bought my 5D i was so impressed with it that I put my MkIV up for sale. I thought that as an allround camera the 5D was without equal (1DX excepted). I still consider the 5 the best value for money camera that Canon has made for a long time.

5D MkIII

PROS.

AF is better than the MkIV
High ISO performance is better than MkIV.
More options for customising various buttons to get the camera how you want it.
Much easier access to Live View. (I use it a lot for landscape)
AF to f8
Better screen to review images.
Build quality OK.

CONS

Only 6FPS.
Not as good build quality.
No crop factor.

1D MkIV

PROS.

Slightly more reach with the crop factor.
AF still very capable.
Superb build quality.
Faster frame rate has its uses.
AF to f8.

CONS.

Review screen too small.
ISO performance not as good as 5D
Not quite as user friendly in its customisation.

I didnt sell my MkIV and I'm now glad of that fact. Its still a very capable camera and produces superb images. I tend to use it when i want a bit more reach or the faster frame rate.

Dropping from the 1.3 crop to FF of the 5D isnt such a big jump. Cropping the 5d image to the same viewpoint still leaves you with plenty. 13 MP against the 16MP of the MkIV.

The MkIV is faster to initially acquire focus but it doesnt hang onto it as well as the 5D.

The MkIV ISO performance isnt quite as good as the 5D. The difference starts to become noticable above ISO 2000 and I wont use the MkIV above 2500. On the 5D i have A3 prints taken at ISO 2000 and they are superb. I also have A4 prints from ISO 5000 files that are very good also. What I do like about the 5D files is that they seem very easy to process. Even high ISO files in LR4 come good very easily.

The AF on the 5D isnt quite as good as the 1DX but theres not a lot in it.

If I had to sell one of the bodies then I would sell the MKIV. The 5D is the better all round camera.

The MkIV is still a great camera and is no slouch when it comes to producing the goods. It was the best Canon had up to the release of the 1DX and 5D3 and will still blow any other canon camera away.

Hope that helps.

Gaz
 
Last edited:
Thanks James Mat and Gary, it looks like you all agree on it being the 5D3 as the better buy and it'll have a warrantee as Mat mentioned. Thanks for explaining your choices as well, not just voting without giving the reason.
 
Andy, I can't compare the 5D3 to a 1D4 but can to my old 7D (same sensor as your 50D). It knocks it into a cocked hat in every way- the AF is better, the image quality is better and even looking at the 7d's 1.6 crop, cropping down a 5D3 usually gives a better image. I also now have the joy of usable pictures at silly ISO levels.
 
Curve ball: if you're in the market for a 5D3 and you don't care about things like dual card slots and eleventy million AF points, why not consider a 6D? Same stellar high-ISO performance as the 5D3, better low-light AF, wifi and GPS, if you like that sort of thing. Bit smaller and lighter, too.

If advanced multipoint AF is important, though, you might want to stay on the 5D3 track.
 
Thanks Jim that's a fair endorsement.
Mat that wont be needed but thanks for the offer though.
Peter I've got to admit that I haven't even thought about a 6D, :thinking: I'll take on board what you say and have a read around the net thanks.
 
No regrets from me going from a 1Dmk4 to a 5Dmk3, my keeper rate is higher and i haven't missed the extra fps, superb iso performance and image quality make up for the build quality difference.
 
Good camera though the 6D is the 5D3 will blow it away for nature, especially BIF. It also has a faster shutter speed of 1/8000. The 5 also takes advantage of UDMA 7 cards which, if you use the latest 160 MB/s CF cards will extend the number of frames before the buffer fills and the frame rate slows.

Posted this before. Same subject same settings on each run.

SD card is 117x no matter how fast a card you use.

All Sandisk 16 GB CF cards

60MB/S Max RAW 13. Frames before FPS slowed 17. Time to clear buffer to Max RAW of 13 again 5.5 secs.

90MB/S Max RAW 13. Frames before FPS slowed 21. Time to clear buffer to max RAAW of 13 again 4.0 secs.

160MB/S Max RAW 13. Frames before FPS slowed 25. Time to clear buffer to max RAW of 13 again 3.25 secs.
 
Last edited:
OK I think these replies are pretty convincing in favour of the 5D3 so looks like I'll stick to my original plan, and thanks again. I don't think I will be going for a 6D but wondered do they come with weather sealing like the 5D and 1D?
 
I recently asked the same question, and followed the advice on here and bought a 5DMk3. I used it for the first time last Saturday, at a circuit rally. It was a filthy, wet and dull day, with horrible light but the 5D coped admirably. I'm delighted with it.

First time out and my hit-rate (in the aforementioned conditions) was 75-80%, which I'm well pleased with. Great autofocus and superb ISO. I started at ISO2000 and there was no discernible noise. The 6fps isn't an issue, for the hit-rate is so good, you will delete less oof shots than with faster fps bodies.

Here's a link to a full-size, un-edited shot straight from the 5D. Shot at ISO2000. Click on the 3 dots in the right margin and then choose to view original size.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/71869825@N02/12090189515/
 
Last edited:
I must be different as I chose a 1d mk4 over the 5d mk3.

My reasons were:
  • Far more frames per second
  • Less lag and blackout
  • Larger and quicker clearing buffer
  • AF points light up red
  • Sport metering linked to AF point
  • Focus points cover more of the image and closer to the edge (really useful in my niche market)
  • F/8 Autofocus - I think this is now on the 5d due to updated firmware but I needed it at the 5d launch time
  • Increased battery performance
  • Better weather sealing
  • A view finder shutter
  • Higher flash sync
  • Handled better in my hand and to put to my eye
  • Sturdier build quality
  • 2 year warranty

Now that the 5d has been out for about 2 years I've had chance to compare with people that shoot alongside me. Keeper rate works out the same, 5d gets less OOF but the 1D fires off more to compensate. I find the image quality is pretty much the same too, my opinion is that the 5d noise is smoother and looks better because of that but I'm undecided if that's at the expense of detail or not. Beyond ISO 5000 though the 5d does start to move ahead. Anyway, in the real world there's a Gnats manhood betwixt them and both will deliver superb images. If the 1Dx had the megapixels of the 5d mk3 then I would have upgraded to get into full frame, but right now I still like my 1D mk4 and have never found it lacking for what I do in the field.

For the interest of comparison, I have uploaded a full resolution 1D mk4 ISO 2000 image for those who which to compare to the 5d mk3 ISO 2000 image posted above.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/surreysam/12101638825/sizes/l/

(click on the link above and then 'original' to get the full size)
 
Last edited:
MkIV is still a great camera Sam. You can see they are still desirable by the price of second hand ones. High mileage ones are going for £1700-1800. Low count are easily clearing £2000.

I keep toying with the idea of selling both 5D3 and MkIV and getting a 1DX but I really like having two bodies and am reluctant to give that up.

After the initial honeymoon period with the 5D im glad i kept the MkIV. There is something about using 1 series bodies that just feels right. Even with a grip on the 5 it doesn't have the feel of the MkIV. Hard to describe but maybe others will know what I mean.

Where the 5 does score over the MkIV is in the customisation of the various buttons and access to live view and the AF definitely has the edge.
 
Just after I got my 5D3 a friend who had a 1D4 asked if I would swap with him for a hour or so so he could try it out while I used his 1D4. After the hour was up he asked if I wanted to swap on a permanent basis. Bearing in mind the 1D4 was more expensive than the 5D3 at this time I should of agreed, sold the 1D4 and bought another 5D3. However, I turned him down and decided to keep my 5D3. I just found it handled better, gave better photos overall and was easier to get aorund it, for me anyway. It did take me a while to make up my mind though aas it was very tempting. In the end I decided I didn't need the extra burst rate as I very rarely machine gun (negating buffer sizes too) and I already had a bunch of LP-E6 batteries for my 7D and 60D that I could use with the 5D3 as well.

Whichever you choose I doubt you would be disappointed but for me, and many others above it seems, the 5D3 was the best option. This is the best camera I've ever used and I can see me owning it until it dies on me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top