# 5D Mark lll or 1d X



## Snapitjack (Mar 13, 2014)

When it come to portrait and/or headshot photography which camera is better suited; The 5D Mark lll or the 1D X?

I know the 5D Mlll has more pixels but the 1D X has larger pixels and has a lot of features that I just wouldn't need and the pic quality isn't that much better than the 5D, so I'm leaning toward the 5D.

Any thoughts? Personal experience?

Thanks guys.


----------



## runnah (Mar 13, 2014)

5d without a doubt. 1DX is great for sports and action.


----------



## Snapitjack (Mar 13, 2014)

Snapitjack said:


> When it come to portrait and/or headshot photography which camera is better suited; The 5D Mark lll or the 1D X?
> 
> I know the 5D has more. I think the 1D X has a lot of features that I just wouldn't need and the pic quality isn't that much better than the 5D, so I'm leaning toward the 5D.
> 
> ...




Thank you. You just saved me $2,000.00. 

I'm happy with my 70D for that action & wildlife stuff so I've got that covered (although there's not much comparison between the 70d and the 1D X).

I really want the full frame sensor of the 5D Mark lll for the other stuff but didn't want to regret not going for the 1D X. I'm feeling like I won't regret the 5D now.

Thanks agin for the feedback.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 13, 2014)

Snapitjack said:


> Snapitjack said:
> 
> 
> > When it come to portrait and/or headshot photography which camera is better suited; The 5D Mark lll or the 1D X?
> ...



yea, runnah has that effect on people. they hear just his opinion, and BOOM! decision made. 













I agree with runnah btw.


----------



## Snapitjack (Mar 13, 2014)

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with anyone who is in line with what I was already thinking _and_ who saves me money. ;-)


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 13, 2014)

For portraits?  Neither.

Get the 6D and *save yourself ANOTHER $1500*. The advantages of the 5DIII over the 6D are mainly autofocus points and FPS, neither of which matter for portrait photography.  And in fact the 6D seems to have a better sensor for noise and such.


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 13, 2014)

You won't have a complaint with either of them.


----------



## Snapitjack (Mar 13, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> For portraits?  Neither.
> 
> Get the 6D and *save yourself ANOTHER $1500*. The advantages of the 5DIII over the 6D are mainly autofocus points and FPS, neither of which matter for portrait photography.  And in fact the 6D seems to have a better sensor for noise and such.



Plus the 6D has GPS, WiFi (and I do like shoot tethered) and it's lighter.
But the 5D Mlll has a better build quality so it could take more abuse, not that I intentionally abuse my gear, and the focus is supposed to be quite a bit better and a second card slot (biggie). Wish I could just shmush the two together, or is that what the 5D MlV will be?

Anyway, I appreciate the feedback. It's good to have the 1D X knocked off the list.


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 13, 2014)

I agree on the 6D and how much abuse does a camera get during headshots. I do birding with a 60D that's been in wind and dust, below freezing temps and gotten a sea water splash once and it is holding up just fine.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 13, 2014)

runnah said:


> 5d without a doubt. 1DX is great for sports and action.



The 1Dx is great for portraits and headshot photography too, but a bit of over kill for the OP's stated need.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 13, 2014)

Snapitjack said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > For portraits?  Neither.
> ...



The focus is not any better for headshots. The 5DIII simply has more autofocus points (and coordination between points). Which is useful for birds in flight and such. The focus point you'd use for almost all headshots--the normal central cross point, in one-shot mode, is identically effective in both.
And yeah sure it's built (a little bit) tougher. Are you planning on setting up your portrait studio in a muddy field with no roof, or inside a volcano? Any DSLR you could buy (even entry crops) would already be hugely overbuilt for indoor portraiture, and the 6D is a significant step up from those with a mostly magnesium body and significant waterproofing rubber flaps on everything, tougher grippier plastics, etc. I don't hesitate at all to shoot in moderate rain, if the lens is resistant too. Or to slap it down on the concrete for a hasty stabilized shot, or to crawl through the scratchy muddy underbrush for a shot. And in a studio who cares.

Yeah the 5DIII has a second card slot. Whatever. Spend a small fraction of the $1500 you save on some high end cards and replacing them often before they wear out, and you won't have issues.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 13, 2014)

Yea, having 61 focus points so you can pick the one that lands exactly on the subject where you want the sharpest focus is over blown compared to focus and recompose with 11 available points.  Besides a working photographer who uses his gear constantly 5 or 6 days a week doesn't need rugged gear made to last the long haul.  If the body quits he or she can just go to the closet where they keep their spare Alienbee's and get out a spare body and just keep shooting away.  :thumbup:


I'm trying to remember, whats the ratio of spare bodies needed on hand, is it three or five?


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 13, 2014)

if your strictly talking portrait photography, and mainly staged studio shots....the 6D is more than enough camera. 
you can use the money saved on good glass and lighting. 
you have _*plenty*_ of time to set up focus points, recompose if you need to, or move your subject. 
its not fast moving objects, or "have to get it NOW only one time ever this very second" type events from 1000 yards away. 

between the two listed in the OP, the 5DIII is more than sufficient, and by all accounts that I have heard, a fantastic camera.


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 13, 2014)

The OP didn't ask about the 6D, the choice was 1Dx or 5D MK III.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 13, 2014)

> Yea, having 61 focus points so you can pick the one that lands exactly on the subject where you want the sharpest focus is over blown compared to focus and recompose with 11 available points.


Yup. Not only is it overblown, but I would suggest _turning them off_ before a portrait session even if you have them, and using a sparser mode, because it makes no sense to click the button 15 times between every time you frame up a new shot with the eye in a new place, instead of clicking 2-3 times. "Recomposing" halfway the distance between two 6D points is ridiculously insignificant, unless you're shooting from like 2 feet away with an f/0.5 lens.



			
				gryphonslair99 said:
			
		

> ...a working photographer who uses his gear constantly 5 or 6 days a week...


Where exactly did the OP even say he was making money at all? Much less a fulltime pro?

If he truly shoots every day all day, he should actually get a 1DX in my opinion, not a 6D or a 5DIII, because even if he only gets a 1-2% margin of success out of a couple of its extra features, he'll probably earn the difference over its lifespan in his ownership.

If  however, he is not a pro, then spending $1500 extra on a camera that has no particularly useful features (except a card slot) for the intended purpose is preposterous. Especially when the 5DIII is actually _worse _on some features that might matter, depending on the type of portraiture. Like ISO noise (band portraits, for example)




> doesn't need rugged gear made to last the long haul.


They're both rugged, and will both last way longer than you need them to shooting portraits. Yeah sure, maybe the 5DIII will last for 500,000 actuations and 40 years, instead of 350,000 actuations and 25 years.  Nobody cares, because long before any of those things happen, both bodies will already be massively obsolete, worth like 2% of their original price, and if being used at all, it won't be by a person who buys cameras new like the OP.

(And actually, according to the data on this site: http://www.olegkikin.com/shutterlife/ for what it's worth, smaller cheaper entry cameras seem to have *significantly *longer actual shutter lives than high end pro cameras, if anything, so I'm being generous in even assuming the 5DIII would last for more actuations at all. Maybe it's the different type of user. Maybe it's the higher FPS. Maybe the data is confounded and wrong somehow. Dunno, but it's the closest we have. For example, a Rebel XTi they estimate at a 50% survival rate around 10,000,000 actuations, whereas a 1DsMkIII they estimate at about a tenth of that, 1,000,000 50% survival)


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 13, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Yup. Not only is it overblown, but I would suggest turning them off before a portrait session even if you have them, and using a sparser mode, because it makes no sense to click the button 15 times between every time you frame up a new shot with the eye in a new place, instead of clicking 2-3 times. "Recomposing" halfway the distance between two 6D points is ridiculously insignificant, unless you're shooting from like 2 feet away with an f/0.5 lens.  Where exactly did the OP even say he was making money at all? Much less a fulltime pro?  If he truly shoots every day all day, he should actually get a 1DX in my opinion, not a 6D or a 5DIII, because even if he only gets a 1-2% margin of success out of a couple of its extra features, he'll probably earn the difference over its lifespan in his ownership.  If  however, he is not a pro, then spending $1500 extra on a camera that has no particularly useful features (except a card slot) for the intended purpose is preposterous. Especially when the 5DIII is actually worse on some features that might matter, depending on the type of portraiture. Like ISO noise (band portraits, for example)  They're both rugged, and will both last way longer than you need them to shooting portraits. Yeah sure, maybe the 5DIII will last for 500,000 actuations and 40 years, instead of 350,000 actuations and 25 years.  Nobody cares, because long before any of those things happen, both bodies will already be massively obsolete, worth like 2% of their original price, and if being used at all, it won't be by a person who buys cameras new like the OP.  (And actually, according to the data on this site: http://www.olegkikin.com/shutterlife/ for what it's worth, smaller cheaper entry cameras seem to have significantly longer actual shutter lives than high end pro cameras, if anything, so I'm being generous in even assuming the 5DIII would last for more actuations at all. Maybe it's the different type of user. Maybe it's the higher FPS. Maybe the data is confounded and wrong somehow. Dunno, but it's the closest we have. For example, a Rebel XTi they estimate at a 50% survival rate around 10,000,000 actuations, whereas a 1DsMkIII they estimate at about a tenth of that, 1,000,000 50% survival)




I'm going to regret replying to this. Have you used the 5D MK III for any reasonable amount of time?


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 13, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> I'm going to regret replying to this. Have you used the 5D MK III for any reasonable amount of time?


Who cares? Yes, I happen to have used one, but it makes no difference, since I'm not claiming anything controversial about the 5DIII. I *agree *it's tougher. It's just that for studio work, the 6D is already so much tougher than you need, it makes no difference how much more tough the other one is. 

An M1 Abrams tank is not any more effective at driving through a piece of plywood than a Ford fiesta is.


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 13, 2014)




----------



## Stevepwns (Mar 13, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to regret replying to this. Have you used the 5D MK III for any reasonable amount of time?
> ...



I have no opinion about the cameras.. I use a Sony.     But the Abrams has no where near the effectiveness of an Fiesta.  Ive been around an Abrams more than a few times... and I have worked on countless Ford Fiestas.   That little piece of crap car would have to be going at least 30 miles an hour to get though a sheet of 5/8ths plywood.  The Abrams is entirely to big to drive through a single sheet of any plywood.  They dont make plywood big enough.  So in reality, the Fiesta in this situation would be the only effective tool to accomplish the task.  

That being said. Since cameras and the technology involved with them is far more complicated than the physics involved in determining which of those 2 vehicles could more effectively pass through a piece of plywood. I am going to just assume you are wrong about the cameras in question.


----------



## tecboy (Mar 13, 2014)

I wonder if someone can demonstrates a crash test on those cameras.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 13, 2014)

tecboy said:


> I wonder if someone can demonstrates a crash test on those cameras.


That would be really nice, but problem is you can't test the same camera for, for instance heat death and also moisture death, because the electronics are either fried after whichever one you try first. And you can't test dropping from different heights, because even if it survives 6 feet, you don't know if it sustained partial damage, and it's no longer a fair comparison at 10 feet, etc. And blah blah. It would take a dozen cameras to cover all of even the most basic sources of damage meaningfully.

I doubt the manufacturers even test much more than some basic stuff  on a handful of bodies. And different ones would likely have non-standardized tests. And there are no government required benchmarks or coordination (unlike with, say, fireproofing on infant clothing or whatever)


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 13, 2014)

I think this is pretty instructive:






Those are *entry level *cheapo DSLRs, and they still work after being dropped multiple times, used as shoes, closed in elevator doors, blowtorched, having 20 pound objects dropped on them from the roof of a building, thrown down stairs, hammering nails, having coffee spilled all over them...


If you're doing more than that in your portrait studio, then uh... I kinda would like to visit your studio. Sounds pretty fun, actually.


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 13, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Who cares? Yes, I happen to have used one, but it makes no difference, since I'm not claiming anything controversial about the 5DIII. I agree it's tougher. It's just that for studio work, the 6D is already so much tougher than you need, it makes no difference how much more tough the other one is.  An M1 Abrams tank is not any more effective at driving through a piece of plywood than a Ford fiesta is.



You should care. It adds weight to any argument you might have. I asked you if you had used the 5D MK III for a "reasonable amount of time" as in enough time to become familiar and comfortable with it. Obviously you haven't because you tap danced around the question with some M1 Abrams crap thinking that would somehow be relevant. 

  You dismissed the importance of the auto focus system claiming that it should be turned off. That was an ignorant statement. Having used both systems I can tell you 5D focusing system destroys that of the 6D. Which is why I chose the 5D MK III over the 6D. 

You also dismissed the extra memory card slot. I guess the insurance of automatic back up is worthless to you. Maybe you've never had a memory card fail. I don't know your reasoning for saying that, it will only take once to change your mind.

So I guess your statement of "I'm not claiming anything controversial about the 5DIII." Is false.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 13, 2014)

> I can tell you 5D focusing system destroys that of the 6D.


Considering my 6D *never *misses focus in a simple straightforward portrait studio environment with controlled lighting, this is not possible.
You can't blow perfect performance for the task out of the water, it doesn't make any sense.



> You also dismissed the extra memory card slot.


I have acknowledged that is an advantage all along. But for a non-pro (assuming he is one), who is unlikely to often have a memory card with anything close to $1500 worth of photos on it, it is not logical to pay an extra $1500 for memory card insurance.
And if he _is _a pro, I already suggested he get the more expensive cameras.



> It adds weight to any argument you might have.


No it doesn't. If a given camera already performs better than you need in a given task, it makes no difference how much better another one is. Therefore it is irrelevant how much you do or do not have experience with it either way. If they sold a camera that cost $3000 more, and was able to track fast moving objects 12x faster, and had 250 AF cross points up to f/8, and transformed into a pontoon bridge when needed? It wouldn't matter if I only shoot portraits, and I could confidently decide not to buy it, even if I had never touched one.

Just like I don't buy bank vault doors for my apartment, or titanium disc brakes and shocks for my bike that I only use to commute 15 minutes to work with, or liquid helium cooling for my desktop computer, or whatever. Even though I've never tested any of those things.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 13, 2014)

Does anybody in this thread wonder what it might be like living in a world in which there were no hypothetical questions?


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 13, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Does anybody in this thread wonder what it might be like living in a world in which there were no hypothetical questions?



Every time I read a post like The one above yours.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 13, 2014)

Omniscience sounds really boring. What would you do all day long if you knew everything?


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 13, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Considering my 6D never misses focus in a simple straightforward portrait studio environment with controlled lighting, this is not possible. You can't blow perfect performance for the task out of the water, it doesn't make any sense.  I have acknowledged that is an advantage all along. But for a non-pro (assuming he is one), who is unlikely to often have a memory card with anything close to $1500 worth of photos on it, it is not logical to pay an extra $1500 for memory card insurance. And if he is a pro, I already suggested he get the more expensive cameras.  No it doesn't. If a given camera already performs better than you need in a given task, it makes no difference how much better another one is. Therefore it is irrelevant how much you do or do not have experience with it either way. If they sold a camera that cost $3000 more, and was able to track fast moving objects 12x faster, and had 250 AF cross points up to f/8, and transformed into a pontoon bridge when needed? It wouldn't matter if I only shoot portraits, and I could confidently decide not to buy it, even if I had never touched one.  Just like I don't buy bank vault doors for my apartment, or titanium disc brakes and shocks for my bike that I only use to commute 15 minutes to work with, or liquid helium cooling for my desktop computer, or whatever. Even though I've never tested any of those things.



So adding stipulations to nicely fit your statements somehow makes them correct? Let's back track even further to the OPs original question of 5D MK III or 1Dx? To which your response was go all 6D fan boy ignoring the question.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 13, 2014)

What stipulations did I "add"?


----------



## tecboy (Mar 13, 2014)

Guys, chill out!  It is the matter of opinions.


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 13, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> What stipulations did I "add"?




This is a joke right? Lol


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 14, 2014)

No I have no idea what you're talking about. But whatever, I don't care/it doesn't matter. I don't think 61 autofocus points or dual slots for cards are worth anything close to $1500 for shooting still portrait subjects as a non-professional. You apparently disagree.

Okay, great. Don't see much else to say. There's no objective method of comparing those two positions. OP can flip a coin or follow his spirit guide or go try them out in a shop himself or whatever seems best *shrug*
Gonna go watch some TV and edit some pictures and drink some delicious cherry juice chia fresca.


----------



## Snapitjack (Mar 14, 2014)

Now hear this;

Thanks guys. I appreciate all the feedback. I mean it. Very interesting and insightful.

I've decided on the 5D Mlll. I need the extra durability and weatherproofing for the type of portraits I do.

As you were.


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 14, 2014)

I've never played with the 1DX, though the OP seems to have come to his conclusion.

I won't argue that the 6D is a better camera than the 5DmkIII, though the 6D will focus better in low light (-3ev). But I will say I recently purchased a 6D for my own (non professional) shooting where the other major Canon contenders were the 70D and 5DmkIII. It was a difficult choice, as each camera in the list brought something to the table.

The 6D , in addition to being >$1k cheaper on its own, included wifi and GPS in that price. 

I think I'm personally unlikely to miss dual slots (especially since one is CF, and I'd have to buy expensive CF cards just for that camera); though it's possible I'll lose an SD card full of awesome pics I just took on a one-time event. I *will* miss the extra AF points though, truth be told, I am most often shooting in single-point focus. 10% more MP? If that were important enough, I'd be in Nikon. 100% Viewfinder? Would have been nice. 

I do feel that Canon deliberately crippled the 6D for strategic reasons, and if someone offered me an even trade for a 5DmkIII I'm pretty sure I'd take it; but it is a camera that is better in at least one-or-two ways that matter to me.


----------



## Dao (Mar 14, 2014)

A serious question.   Will there any improvement between a 70 and 5D in a control studio environment for head shot and portrait photos?    (Assume studio space is not the limitation factor for now)


----------



## kathyt (Mar 14, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > I can tell you 5D focusing system destroys that of the 6D.
> 
> 
> Considering my 6D *never *misses focus in a simple straightforward portrait studio environment with controlled lighting, this is not possible.
> ...


Your 6D never misses focus? I am going to raise the BS flag on that one. That is like saying I have never faked the big "O."


----------



## runnah (Mar 14, 2014)

kathyt said:


> That is like saying I have never faked the big "O."



You're the worst kind of liar.


----------



## Snapitjack (Mar 14, 2014)

I am not a professional, though if the opportunity arose I'd probabbly give it a shot. But I would _never_ do event photography. Scares the hell outta me. That's a lot of responsibility. A headshot or portrait can be retaken.

You guys are a wealth of information. I didn't know I was asking such a controversional question. Although I can tell you guys all respect each other and it's just friendly bantor. But it was a little like having asked "what is better, Mac or Windows?" (we all know it's Mac, right?).

Have a great day guys.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 14, 2014)

kathyt said:
			
		

> Your 6D never misses focus? I am going to raise the BS flag on that one. That is like saying I have never faked the big "O."



As in so many cases in which the Big "O" is faked to get it over with, we just want to put a stop to this thread...


----------



## runnah (Mar 14, 2014)

Derrel said:


> As in so many cases in which the Big "O" is faked to get it over with, we just want to put a stop to this thread...



Sorry but I like to keep a thread going until it delivers. Sometimes you have to switch tactics, change your position etc... But never give up!


----------



## jaomul (Mar 14, 2014)

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > As in so many cases in which the Big "O" is faked to get it over with, we just want to put a stop to this thread...
> ...


Do we have an expert on this subject?


----------



## kathyt (Mar 14, 2014)

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > As in so many cases in which the Big "O" is faked to get it over with, we just want to put a stop to this thread...
> ...


I just changed the man. It worked perfectly!


----------



## table1349 (Mar 14, 2014)

kathyt said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > > I can tell you 5D focusing system destroys that of the 6D.
> ...


But..................But....................But.......last night you told me you never fake anything.:cry:


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 14, 2014)

kathyt said:


> Your 6D never misses focus? I am going to raise the BS flag on that one. That is like saying I have never faked the big "O."


That's not what I wrote. I said the 6D never misses focus _in a portrait studio with controlled lighting_. And indeed it doesn't. 

Since he said headshots, studio seemed likely. The OP has since then implied, however, that he shoots mainly outside the studio and in adverse conditions, and in that case, the 5DIII does indeed provide meaningful advantages in waterproofing and impact resistance, etc. Possibly AF too, if he's counting sports as "portraiture" or taking portraits of people jumping off cliffs or something.

I think that was probably a reasonable choice.


----------



## kblackwell (Mar 19, 2014)

Personally speaking, I prefer the 5d lll over the 1dx whenever I'm travelling, essentially due to the inferior weight and bulk. That said, I feel the even lighter 6d actually feels a little fragile and I certainly wouldn't want to drop one on a marble floor, something I managed to do with one of my 5ds (it bounced).
Cheers
Karl

Karl Blackwell photography, travel, corporate, Canon, editorial, commercial | karl blackwell


----------

