# Canon 1D X vs. 5D Mark III



## sharpiegoddess (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm upgrading my T3i and need some input. The world beyond Rebel seems more defined or tailored to specific needs and I don't want to grab a camera that isn't suited to mine. What initially pops out at me is it looks as if I'll be able to use my two EF-S lenses on the 1D X as well as my EF lens but I don't see that as confirmed on the Canon website. The Mark III obviously would be more 'portable' and has a much more attractive price. Both are an upgrade to a full-frame sensor but the Mark III is an upgrade in MP as well. I know no one can give me advice from hands-on experience but there is plenty to be read out there and I just can't interpret it all. So perhaps someone who speaks better camera specs than me or has experience with either's predecessor can help me out.

Basically, I need something for my portrait work. I shoot maternity, babies, and boudoir mostly on site but I do studio as well. I don't want a camera that will be overkill but I do need the best for what I'm doing.


----------



## Tony S (Mar 3, 2012)

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your EF-S lenses won't work.

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EOS 5D Mark III

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EOS-1D X


----------



## sharpiegoddess (Mar 3, 2012)

Tony S said:


> Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your EF-S lenses won't work.



I figured as much. I was reading in a few reviews and on Wiki that they would, but I wasn't going to give up hope because it wasn't reflected on the official Canon site.
Oh well.

ETA: I've been staring at those two pages all day. I was just wondering if someone could show me the big picture. For example... "Oh no, this one would be better for a sport photographer" or "This one is better for someone doing stills and video but not just stills" etc.


----------



## Overread (Mar 3, 2012)

EFS lenses only ever fit to crop sensor bodies - so the rebel series, the 40D, 50D, 60D and 7D to name most of the modern ones. From then on the canon bodies only fit EF lenses. Note that most 3rd party lenses even if they are made for crop sensor still use the EF mount not the EFS mount - however many if mounted to a fullframe body will hit the mirror inside when it flicks up (causing damage) and will further likely give you very strong vignetting (black corners) because they cast a smaller image circle. 
Some can be used, but in general its not the best of options.


Further I'd say that you're jumping up a massive jump from rebel to pro series and whilst those bodies are not hard to control (the basic operations are the same its only the bells and whistles you have to learn to master) you might be better set to first invest in a stronger lens and lighting setup. 
You could also save a lot and get a second hand/reconditioned 5D/5DMII giving you fullframe now and letting you build your lens selection around that angle of view. Whilst glass and lighting are very important sensor size changes should always be made as early as possible so that you can work with the sensor size that you intend to use. 

A lot depends how much you have to invest - if you've a lot more you can certainly consider a 5DMII,III or 1DMIV (which is 1.3crop no full frame but still only takes EF lenses) along with new glass and lighting gear.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 3, 2012)

Wow.. you must have a lot of money to be comparing these 2 cameras.


----------



## sharpiegoddess (Mar 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:
			
		

> Wow.. you must have a lot of money to be comparing these 2 cameras.



Kind of unnecessary and rude....


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm serious.  Not rude.


----------



## fokker (Mar 3, 2012)

IMO get a 5d2, they will going cheap on ebay soon and are perfect for the kind of work you do. A lot of people seem to bag the old 9 point AF system in the 5d/5d2, but all my shots seem to be in focus. Besides, do you really need 61-point AF to get a sharp shot of a baby? Spend the extra dosh on some quality EF lenses and you won't regret it.


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 3, 2012)

ehhhh...  I thought it was a little rude..  but whatever.  Obviously if she's looking at these cameras she knows what they cost.


So, the 1Dx is really engineered as a high speed action camera.  It has a very high burst rate, and very advanced focus tracking and metering system, all built for shooting fast moving subjects.  I think that unless you're going to use that dimension of the camera to it's fullest, then the 1Dx is probably overkill.

To me it sounds like the 5D MkIII will do what you're asking beautifully.  Chances are the 5D MkII would even suffice, as many professionals are using them right now for all the subjects you described.  However, the MkIII will have much improved autofocus, and improved low light capability, so unless the price is a factor I'd go for the MkIII.

As Mike mentioned though, lighting and lenses will have more of an impact on image quality than will your camera body, so you should really be researching this area as well...   If you've got the budget for everything, then get whatever you need, but if not, the body would be the last thing I buy.  I would first make sure I had a few speedlights with radio triggers / modifiers / stands / etc, and also a few nice primes, and then start thinking about a body.


----------



## fokker (Mar 3, 2012)

Yeah, and the price diff between the used mk2 and a new mk3 will probably run close to $2k, which will buy you a couple of nice lenses or a studio full of lighting gear band backdrops.


----------



## sharpiegoddess (Mar 3, 2012)

Thanks everyone for the input.
I may consider the mkII now.
It's difficult to say no to all the mkIII hype.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 3, 2012)

You do understand 1Dx is over $6000 right? Usually people who want buy this already know exactly what they want. Not understanding how you can't mount an EF-S to a full frame canon is just a little crazy for someone who is considering a $6000 camera. Plus you only had a few posts.....

Even for a wedding photograher 1Dx is an overkill.

If you are comparing a 5D II and III, I would take a 5D III. BUT for what you are doing, 5D II is plenty good. But then again it is only $1900 camera compared to $6000+ 1Dx. Cant really compare the 2.

Sorry if I sounded rude.  Just couldnt believe what I am seeing.



sharpiegoddess said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 3, 2012)

Both of those cameras will perform flawlessly for anything you want to shoot. The only question I have is if you're ready to make that big of a jump from a Rebel. I'm not trying to be insulting, but many people don't understand how big of a jump it really is.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 3, 2012)

sharpiegoddess said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed. It's her money. WTF is it to you what equipment she's looking to buy?? Are you her financial manager? Business adviser? Seriously...the comment, as brief as it was is what's called a "drive-by insult".

Anyway, the 1DX is a large, heavy, flagship-level camera. The 5D-III is lighter, smaller, and around 50% less costly. DITCH the EF-S lenses by selling them. They will be of no use to you on a full-frame Canon body. You wouldn't want them if they did fit,anyway. THe 5D-III qualifies as a "professional camera"...the 5D-II did NOT....it had a good sensor in it, but a poor AF system for the most-challenging types of situations. The 5D-III has a much more-advanced AF system that should work well for those willing to learn to use it. I say "should" because the 1D Mark III autofocusing fiasco is still relatively recent, but I am going to assume that the new 61-point AF system is a good one. This is the first digital SLR Canon has ever made in which the AF system of the TOP-level body, the 1DX, is shared with another camera...something Nikon has been doing for over half a decade now. The 5D-III is the camera that the 5D-II should have been...a true pro camera...

One thing I can say with some certainty: there will be a BOATLOAD of used Canon lenses and bodies on the used market over the next eight months to a year; whenever a camera maker comes out with "the next big thing", tens of thousands of hobbyists, and pros alike, will SELL equipment to raise cash, and to simply be shooting the "next big thing". Both the 1DX and the 5D-III qualify as the next BIG advancement for Canon, so there will be some very good deals on older lenses and bodies. I suggest buying used lenses instead of new.


----------



## sharpiegoddess (Mar 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> You do understand 1Dx is over $6000 right? Usually people who want buy this already know exactly what they want. Not understanding how you can't mount an EF-S to a full frame canon is just a little crazy for someone who is considering a $6000 camera. Plus you only had a few posts.....
> 
> Even for a wedding photograher 1Dx is an overkill.
> 
> ...



It's not that I don't understand lens mounts. I simply read some misinformation and thought maybe there is some new technology that's getting slapped onto it where you can mount both types. *Shrugs* That's what I get for letting Wiki give my hopes up.

No worries.




EIngerson said:


> Both of those cameras will perform flawlessly for anything you want to shoot. The only question I have is if you're ready to make that big of a jump from a Rebel. I'm not trying to be insulting, but many people don't understand how big of a jump it really is.



I grasp that it's going to be a jump and I'm planning for the time it's going to take to warm up to it before it can be added to my 'work lineup.' The only reason I have two Rebels is because, at the time, money was an issue but I needed to upgrade from film if I was going to get anywhere.


Derrel, thanks for the heads up about lenses and your input. I was thinking about keeping my Rebels and EF-S lenses to shoot stuff with my son but the more I think about it I think that's best left to a P&S. I don't know how parents do it lugging around DSLRs and chasing after their kids.


----------



## greybeard (Mar 3, 2012)

I am of the opinion that you need to get to a FF body as soon as you can if that is the format you intend to work in.  As far as money goes, it really is nobody's business how much you spend and the great thing about digital, is you can practice for free.  Not true in the bad old days of film.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Mar 3, 2012)

Well, if you're going to be dumping your lenses and Rebel body anyway, there's no $$ reason for you to stay with Canon.  Come on over to Nikon and you can get a better camera (D800) than the overhyped and overpriced 5DIII.  For shooting people, Nikon's AF is world's better.  Especially in low-light.  By comparison, the 5DII AF is slightly better than a bag full of dog poop.

For what you say you primarily shoot, Nikon will serve your needs better, methinks.

You'd be doing yourself a huge disservice if you don't consider ALL your options when looking at a major change/upgrade in equipment.  Your "comfort" with the Canon menus and such is irrelevant in the longterm...


----------



## menkaur (Mar 3, 2012)

hey. I'm having the same issue with those cameras.

I'm a studio/wedding photographer.

Until recently, I was totally convinced, that I needed Canon EOS 1D X camera, and I was collecting money to buy it. And yesterday, I saw the specs for the new Canon 5D Mark 3 camera body, and I see a lot of the stuff that appeared to me (like 61 auto focus point).

5D Mark III Full Spec List? « Canon Rumors
Canon Professional Network - The EOS-1D X explained: inside Canon

I don't plan to shut at 204 000 ISO, and at this moment I don't expect to see much difference between 12 fps and 6 fps in terms of the resulting photography quality. Also, in terms of the results for my clients, there's little practical difference between 18.1MP and 22.3MP shots.

The most important thing that I saw, was the difference in shutter durability (150 000 vs 400 000), which makes 1D X shots slightly cheaper.

I still would like to make the decision based on the expected image quality. I saw many photos which were made with 1D's and other cameras before, and I can say, that having a 1D did make a difference to photo quality in the past. My question is: will the image quality of those cameras be identical, or does 1D offer any other advantages, which I have missed?


----------



## sharpiegoddess (Mar 4, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Well, if you're going to be dumping your lenses and Rebel body anyway, there's no $$ reason for you to stay with Canon.  Come on over to Nikon and you can get a better camera (D800) than the overhyped and overpriced 5DIII.  For shooting people, Nikon's AF is world's better.  Especially in low-light.  By comparison, the 5DII AF is slightly better than a bag full of dog poop.
> 
> For what you say you primarily shoot, Nikon will serve your needs better, methinks.
> 
> You'd be doing yourself a huge disservice if you don't consider ALL your options when looking at a major change/upgrade in equipment.  Your "comfort" with the Canon menus and such is irrelevant in the longterm...



Must not let dark side tempt me... :crazy:
Will not join you... not even for cookies... :banghead:

I swooned over the D800 for several long minutes. I had to repent for each one of them.


----------



## LightSpeed (Mar 4, 2012)

sharpiegoddess said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > Well, if you're going to be dumping your lenses and Rebel body anyway, there's no $$ reason for you to stay with Canon.  Come on over to Nikon and you can get a better camera (D800) than the overhyped and overpriced 5DIII.  For shooting people, Nikon's AF is world's better.  Especially in low-light.  By comparison, the 5DII AF is slightly better than a bag full of dog poop.
> ...



You're in the real school now.
You may not want to believe it but some of these cats know, very well, what they're talking about.
Reference Cgipson, KmH, Derrel and HelenB.

Welcome to the forum.
I think you'll find it an unusual experience.
I am LightSpeed, pleased to make your acquaintance.


----------



## TheBiles (Mar 4, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Well, if you're going to be dumping your lenses and Rebel body anyway, there's no $$ reason for you to stay with Canon.  Come on over to Nikon and you can get a better camera (D800) than the overhyped and overpriced 5DIII.  For shooting people, Nikon's AF is world's better.  Especially in low-light.  By comparison, the 5DII AF is slightly better than a bag full of dog poop.
> 
> For what you say you primarily shoot, Nikon will serve your needs better, methinks.
> 
> You'd be doing yourself a huge disservice if you don't consider ALL your options when looking at a major change/upgrade in equipment.  Your "comfort" with the Canon menus and such is irrelevant in the longterm...


 
Good thing the 5D III packs better AF than the D800, better low-light performance, and faster continuous shooting. I don't even see the point of bringing up the 5D II's AF when the discussion was about the III. The 5D III is for people who are looking for more than a ridiculous number of megapixels. It seems like any long-time Nikon user would easily say the 5D III is more of a D700 successor than the D800. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## molested_cow (Mar 4, 2012)

Well, if you don't need video, may be the D700.....


----------



## sharpiegoddess (Mar 4, 2012)

LightSpeed said:
			
		

> You're in the real school now.
> You may not want to believe it but some of these cats know, very well, what they're talking about.
> Reference Cgipson, KmH, Derrel and HelenB.
> 
> ...



Thanks!


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 4, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> sharpiegoddess said:
> 
> 
> > jamesbjenkins said:
> ...



Yes, because no one uses Canon in the professional world... :lmao: 

What a joke. OP, this advice is about as sound as Ken Rockwell's. 

Check this out.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 4, 2012)

TheBiles said:
			
		

> SNIP> Good thing the 5D III packs better AF than the D800, better low-light performance, and faster continuous shooting. >SNIP



I'd like to take a second to offer an opinion on which camera has the better AF system and the better low-light performance. First off, the Nikon D800 has a new AF system that is specified to autofocus with optics with maximum apertures as small as f/8; that is a simply incredible figure!!! What that means is that slow lenses, paired with teleconverters, will still autofocus. In a practical sense, that specification, how "slow" the lens can be and still deliver autofocusing that is reliable, is the TRUE measure of AF system capability--much,much,much more so than the number of autofocusing points.

As far as low-light shooting: my feeling is that the D800 and the D4, will be able to actually achieve fast,reliable autofocusing in dimmer light levels than the Canon system in the 5D-III. AND, this is the biggie, the Nikon bodies will be able to deliver their AF with sloooooow lenses, such as zooms + teleconverters. As far as shooting speeds, the D800 is a six frames per second camera, just like the 5D-III is. The D800 users simply has to move down from a FX capture size to get that 6 FPS speed.

In a way, the Nikon D800 is TWO cameras in one: an ultra-high resolution 36MP camera, as well as a 16.2 MP crop-body camera....

Right now, today, user reports and real samples for both the D800 and the 5D-III are scarce. But as far as camera that have "better autofocus", the number of AF points is not really a very good measure of AF performance. The real world determines how well a camera tends to be at focusing. Canon 's 1D Mark III was perhaps the single biggest AF flop of the entire decade, with its 39 AF points...but the actual real-world perfomance over 18 months made Canon's "pro" camera into a laughing stock, and they lost tens of thousands of shooters to Nikon, which simply had a much better AF system in multiple bodies. I expect the 5D-III will be much better than the 5D-II in terms of AF, but that's not saying much. It'll be nice to see how these two new cameras actually work in real-world situations!!!


----------



## penfolderoldo (Mar 5, 2012)

sharpiegoddess said:


> Thanks everyone for the input.
> I may consider the mkII now.
> It's difficult to say no to all the mkIII hype.



...and that's exactly what it is - hype! Canon are seriously away in fairy land at the moment - in addition to the frankly ridiculous price for the 5D mark III, the battery grip for it comes in at £350 and the new 600EX speedlight comes in at £650!!!! Now, those will inevitably drop a bit, but nowhere near where they should be! and Canon wonder why they're haemorraging 'togs to Nikon left right and centre...


----------



## soylentgreen (Mar 5, 2012)

I would consider the 5D MkIII just for the auto-focus alone. The 11-point system on the MkII works, but it leaves a lot to be desired. Image quality should not be a problem with either models. The added 1.5 frames per second on the MkIII over the MkII is a big plus. Almost puts it on par with the 7D. The 1Dx is more for action, sports; hence the lower MP but faster frame rate. you really can't go wrong with either camera, though I have not heard a release date on the 1Dx yet. That is the body I may unload both my 5D MkII and 7D to get...


----------



## Derrel (Mar 5, 2012)

What is up with these sky-high battery grip prices???


----------



## MLeeK (Mar 5, 2012)

For what you are shooting the 5d2 is a great camera. The 5d3 looks phenomenal. The 1dX is overkill. I have a 1d3 that I will be replacing this year and as much as I WANT a 1DX it's simply more than I TRULY need. The new 5d3 combined with my 7D will cover  both my portrait/wedding stuff and my sports. 
The 1dX is more geared towards professional sports shooters. 
Provided the focus system in the 5d3 performs close to my 7D? I am happy as a pig in poop with it. I have considered crossing over several times, but the cost? I just can't justify it and I think that the new specs for the 5d3 have made me content with my canon gear once again.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 5, 2012)

Derrel said:


> What is up with these sky-high battery grip prices???



Probably the same pricing model as for spare parts at your auto dealer. When you got them by the shorties, you can make them dance any tune you want.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Mar 5, 2012)

TheBiles said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > Well, if you're going to be dumping your lenses and Rebel body anyway, there's no $$ reason for you to stay with Canon.  Come on over to Nikon and you can get a better camera (D800) than the overhyped and overpriced 5DIII.  For shooting people, Nikon's AF is world's better.  Especially in low-light.  By comparison, the 5DII AF is slightly better than a bag full of dog poop.
> ...



I'll only respond to your blatant fanboyism by saying that Canon's history in AF performance has been woeful by comparison to comparable products Nikon offers.  There are plenty of things that Canon excels at, but AF is not one of them.  Until I'm proven wrong, past performance is the best indicator of future performance.  And FWIW, I'd gladly pit the AF from my 3.5 yr old D700 against that new 5DIII.  Canon AF sucks.  Plain and simple.

As for high ISO performance, 10 minutes of research on DxOmark or another stat site will tell any objective viewer that the visible noise is noticeably worse than the Nikon competitor.  This is true of the EOS 1D X vs. D4 as well.  Strike two against your fanboyism.

And finally, if you really think that continuous shooting speed means a damn thing in the real world application of either the D800 or the 5DIII, then you're obviously not in the target customer demographic for either camera.  Last time I checked, no one gave a rat's rear end about FPS when they're in their studio, or on a hillside somewhere.  If they did, they'd buy a D4 (or 1D X if they want to tote inferior gear.)  Arguing about continuous shooting speed...really?  Strike three against your fanboyism.


You can sign off now.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 5, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> TheBiles said:
> 
> 
> > jamesbjenkins said:
> ...



James, you realize that your fanboyism (as you call it) also shines through in your post. The AF in the 7D was nothing to scoff at. As a matter of fact, that's an AF system that Canon got VERY RIGHT, and it works surprisingly well. I find it disheartening that you're judging and poo-pooing the 5DIII AF system without any real world tests, when in fact it will more than likely perform very well. The specs of the 5DIII have shown me that Canon is actually listening to consumers and implementing better autofocus, as well as not trying to push the megapixel count like the 5DII did when it was first out. 

From what I've heard from various sources is that the 5DIII is very capable of putting out clean images at 25,600ISO. I've looked for a comparison of the two cameras at the same ISO, but its still too early. 

The OP is a Canon shooter. And whether she's looking at a 5DIII or a 1Dx, there's not a big giant reason for her to switch camera systems at this point when the offerings she is looking at are on par with Nikon's technology on paper. Maybe when real world tests are done and she can conclude that one is better than the other, there might be a reason for her to switch... But there probably won't be any reason at all. 

Lets not force conjecture and speculation on the OP because you're biased towards Nikon. That's all I am saying.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Mar 6, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> I'll only respond to your blatant fanboyism by saying that Canon's history in AF performance has been woeful by comparison to comparable products Nikon offers.  There are plenty of things that Canon excels at, but AF is not one of them.  Until I'm proven wrong, past performance is the best indicator of future performance.  And FWIW, I'd gladly pit the AF from my 3.5 yr old D700 against that new 5DIII.  Canon AF sucks.  Plain and simple.
> 
> As for high ISO performance, 10 minutes of research on DxOmark or another stat site will tell any objective viewer that the visible noise is noticeably worse than the Nikon competitor.  This is true of the EOS 1D X vs. D4 as well.  Strike two against your fanboyism.
> 
> ...



James, i'm with Tyler on this one - you've just done exactly what you berated TB for doing! To say that Canon has never been known for it's AF is palpably ludicrous - when AF first came out for years 95% of pro photographers - who rely on their gear for their livelihood remember - chose Canon over Nikon. Have Canon produced some truly shocking AF systems in recent years? you better believe they have! but to imply that Nikon's AF is always superior to Canon's (or anyone else's for that matter) is a sweeping generalisation too far. 

Both Canon and Nikon have produced some fantastic, earth shattering cameras over recent years, just as both have produced some absolute horrors, doesn't make either MANUFACTURER better, just means certain PRODUCTS are better.

It is FAR too early to tell which will camera will give better overall performance, but can I suggest that before you pour scorn and petty insults on the 1Dx or any other camera you perhaps try them? Have you tried the 1Dx? or even the D4? No, thought not...


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 6, 2012)

sharpiegoddess said:


> I'm upgrading my T3i and need some input. The world beyond Rebel seems more defined or tailored to specific needs and I don't want to grab a camera that isn't suited to mine. What initially pops out at me is it looks as if I'll be able to use my two EF-S lenses on the 1D X as well as my EF lens but I don't see that as confirmed on the Canon website. The Mark III obviously would be more 'portable' and has a much more attractive price. Both are an upgrade to a full-frame sensor but the Mark III is an upgrade in MP as well. I know no one can give me advice from hands-on experience but there is plenty to be read out there and I just can't interpret it all. So perhaps someone who speaks better camera specs than me or has experience with either's predecessor can help me out.
> 
> Basically, I need something for my portrait work. I shoot maternity, babies, and boudoir mostly on site but I do studio as well. I don't want a camera that will be overkill but I do need the best for what I'm doing.


I'm surprised that nobody mentioned sticking with a crop sensor camera, and putting the difference into lenses and lighting equipment.  Those will likely make much more of a difference to the type of shooting you mention, than the camera body that you use.  

If you take a Rebel, put an L lens on it, and then use good quality and sufficient lighting...you'll likely be better off than if you bought a 1Dx and cheaper lenses and inadequate lighting.  

And if you're going to be shooting in-studio or in a situation where you have full control over the lighting...then you probably won't need to shoot at high ISO, nor will you need super fancy AF etc.  Those things are great, but if you trade them for a great lens, it might be a good trade.

As an example, I know and work with a fantastic photographer.  His main wedding camera is a Canon 1DsmkIII.  He has several other cameras, including a Nikon D700.  He says that he uses the 1Ds mainly because it's rock solid and it has two memory card slots.  When he shoots portraits, he uses his 40D.


----------



## Village Idiot (Mar 6, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> TheBiles said:
> 
> 
> > jamesbjenkins said:
> ...



I liked your post because I feel that you may be lonely and need friends. Want a hug buddy? We don't have to be so angry all the time.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Mar 6, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> TheBiles said:
> 
> 
> > jamesbjenkins said:
> ...



To be honest, I feel both statements are wrong in their own different and distinct ways. Why is it when these discussions come up that they have to revolve around people claiming one is 'BETTER' than the other? The D800 is going to be an amazing camera and the 5D MKIII will be an amazing camera I'm sure. 

I feel Canon have been slightly misguided over the last few years, they have been great with video but not so great on the photographic side of things. I think it was a sign of complacency if anything. 

But Canon are now back in the game with these camera releases, the prices are beyond a JOKE. I agree with Penfold on this one. But I think the high prices are a signal of Canon actually going back to doing some decent R & D on their cameras and actually bringing something powerful to the table.

The 1DX and 5D III are both cameras which will really change things I suspect in a good way for Canon, it is not a case of which is better. I think Canon and Nikon are now back on a level playing field with these announcements. 

The 5D MKIII will be a great all round full frame camera which could be all any photographer would ever need in my opinion. The D800 is a powerful full frame studio/landscape which can be used as a 16MP DX camera. This is pretty damn cool for both brand users.


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 6, 2012)

Everyone is saying that prices are a joke etc etc...   but currency isn't worth what it used to be.  The cost of industry depends on the cost of oil, and the cost of goods depends on the value of the dollar.  So you can't really compare these prices to the prices of cameras released previously.  Too many large scale economic factors have changed and it is likely no longer possible to offer products at the prices they were being offered at 5 years ago.  I bet the cost of physically getting the camera from Asia to North America is twice what it used to be, never mind whatever else has changed.


----------



## MLeeK (Mar 6, 2012)

This has turned into an absurd post and argument. Expecting the OP to switch over for anyone's opinion is first and foremost absurd. 
I am a canon fan... the signature? HOWEVER I freely admit to having hated my 5d2 more than loved it. FOR WHAT I DO. I have thought about switching-it's rather cost prohibitive to switch systems mid stream, not to mention the fact that it won't work the same as a Canon for me. 
I am pretty sure it's been said a million times on this forum that neither one is THE BOMB. It's about what is right for the shooter. 
Making statements like the ones made here without having tested OR even seeing test shots with the new cameras? That is pure speculation with nothing to back it up. 

OP-if it's canon you want to stick with it will be canon that fits you properly. It doesn't matter which one has what toy or edge over the other. It's about YOU and what fits YOU. 
I said before the 1dX is incredible overkill for what you are saying you will be doing. The 5d2 is a phenomenal studio, landscape and wedding camera. The 7D is a phenomenal all around camera. The 5d3 looks like it's going to be a combination of the 7D's focus, full frame and a reasonably fast FPS for sports shooters. It seemingly looks like a step between the 5d2 and the 1DX more than a 5d3 to me. 

I will upgrade to the 5d3 as the specs on it are definitely making me happy for a change. I will, however wait 6 months to see what the price drop is and to make sure any bugs and firmware updates are worked out.


----------



## MLeeK (Mar 6, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> TheBiles said:
> 
> 
> > jamesbjenkins said:
> ...



You might want to check those ISO images and really compare... You jumped the gun.
And the frames per second on the 5d3 meant a *whole lot* to this shooter. Removing some of the handicaps they put on a camera of that price range had to happen to keep their customers happy. It really didn't make much sense to be able to shoot EVERYTHING with the 7D, but be limited when spending a grand more on the 5D3. Yes, it matters greatly. If you are going to handicap a camera I'd hope to God it would be as you go DOWN in price, not UP.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Mar 6, 2012)

The simple fact is that both Canon and Nikon have great products.  I never discounted Canon as a brand.  I just said that to this point, their DSLR AF technology has been severely lacking, most noticeably in low light, low contrast settings.



> It is FAR too early to tell which will camera will give better overall  performance, but can I suggest that before you pour scorn and petty  insults on the 1Dx or any other camera you perhaps try them? Have you  tried the 1Dx? or even the D4? No, thought not...



Pretty sure I explicitly stated in my post that we don't have a 5DIII to test for real yet, so past performance will have to serve as the primary indicator of future performance.

If you'll read up before all this rabbit trailing, I started this by posting to the OP a light-hearted jab that since she was selling her crop body and lenses that it was the perfect time to switch to Nikon.  Then TheBiles chimed in with his Canon fanboy crap and things went from there.

Obviously, at this point, we all know that both companies are capable of delivering quality products.  However, when one company's products (Nikon) outperform another company's products (Canon) in every meaningful metric for shooting people and moving things for an entire product lifecycle (mid-2008 til now), there's considerable evidence to back my stated opinion that Canon is no longer the top dog.

As for the 5DIII vs. the D800, that's about the only thing TheBiles got right.  There's no reason to compare the two.  The 5DIII should be compared to the as-of-yet unreleased replacement for the D700.  Given Nikon's confirmation that they will be releasing 3 more camera bodies this year, the chances are pretty high that we'll see something worth comparing to, and beating, the over-hyped and over-priced 5DIII...


----------



## penfolderoldo (Mar 7, 2012)

James, I have neither the enthusiasm nor the patience to argue the toss with you, as it would seem from your biased, illogical and frankly inaccurate post above that Nikon could release a polished turd with a button and you'd proclaim it superior to any Canon!

Enjoy your photography, i've no doubts your D700 and D7000 will help you produce great images, just as my Canon's help me do the same.


----------



## Village Idiot (Mar 7, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> The simple fact is that both Canon and Nikon have great products.  I never discounted Canon as a brand.  I just said that to this point, their DSLR AF technology has been severely lacking, most noticeably in low light, low contrast settings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Umadbro?

All the D800 is, is a 5D MKII with more mega pixels and improved AF.


----------



## EverydayLaVan (Mar 7, 2012)

I'm interested in both the 5D mkIII and the 1Dx.

I do a ton of concert photography, with a mix of superstar acts (with ample lighting) and those up & coming acts, with hardly any lights.

I would LOVE to get some solid shots of the smaller acts, but it's difficult with the 7D that I'm currently using, in some venues.

The 1Dx will obviously deliver what I need, but I just wonder if the 5D mxIII will also...at half the price.

***Btw, this is my first post on this board.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Mar 7, 2012)

EverydayLaVan said:


> I'm interested in both the 5D mkIII and the 1Dx.
> 
> I do a ton of concert photography, with a mix of superstar acts (with ample lighting) and those up & coming acts, with hardly any lights.
> 
> ...



Firstly, welcome to the forum. Out of interest, what is it you're struggling with using the 7D for lower light gigs? I use both my 7D and my 1Ds III when i'm covering a gig, even in tiny places with little more than a few candles (it can be a nightmare, really!), is it the AF you feel lets you down?  To be honest, most of the time I manually focus at indoor gigs, even with the 1Ds. 

If what I was doing was primarily gig shots i'd personally go for a used 1Ds III, which will - hopefully - drop once these 2 come out. If on the other hand your issue is lens speed, i'd stick with the 7D and invest in some fast glass, which will possibly make more of a difference than a different body.


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 7, 2012)

The 7D has pretty similar low light performance to my 60D, maybe half a stop better.  When I shoot in small clubs, even at f/1.4, I'm still at ISO6400 often, which is a stretch for cams like the 60D and 7D.  The 5D III looks like it can do 6400 and even 12800 without flinching, which will be awesome in these sorts of situations.  I might even get to have some DOF occasionally!  :lmao:


----------



## EverydayLaVan (Mar 7, 2012)

penfolderoldo, in regards to glass, I'm fine with using these Canon lenses:
50mm 1.4
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8
20mm prine 2.8

The 7D is not performing at a level where the images look like what the human sees...unless Icrank that ISO, and get all of that noise. I'm not having many issues with the AF...I just want less noise in the extremely low-light situations.
Perfect example:
Lauryn Hill : 02 29 2012 &#8211; Everyday LaVan Photography
Settings:
Shutter: 100
ISO: 6400
f/2.8
Most were brightened trememendously.


----------



## MLeeK (Mar 7, 2012)

EverydayLaVan said:


> penfolderoldo, in regards to glass, I'm fine with using these Canon lenses:
> 50mm 1.4
> 24-70 2.8
> 70-200 2.8
> ...



That is your problem. You NEVER want to underexpose a high ISO image. if you brighten or increase exposure it will create more noise than you can imagine. You would have been better off going to ISO 12800 than brightening anything. 
I use the 7D at 12800. Almost on a daily basis during sports. It does NOT have to be that noisy-if you do not underexpose. 
HOWEVER... the 5d3? will make that sooo much easier!!!

7D at ISO 12800 the only noise reduction is done in ACR. Moderately aggressive on these ones on the Luminance and about 25 on the color. No sharpening or polish on these ones..









Because both of those are at the far end of our court I am pretty confident when I say that they were not as overexposed as I would like to have them-that's my dark side in this particular gym. Normally I am overexposed to the point that the highlights in those white jerseys are blown in at least 2 color channels and the shadows in 1 or nearly 1


----------



## EverydayLaVan (Mar 7, 2012)

MLeek, I almost never have to brighten beyond a nothc or two. Most times I get the exposure right, or near right...

For the show, with that link I posted, it was almost dark in the venue. 12800 probably would have only made a slight difference.

I'll remember your suggestion though, thanks!!!


----------



## penfolderoldo (Mar 7, 2012)

To be honest LaVan, the lighting in the link doesn't look too bad at all - i've shot headliners in far far lower light than that. Ur glass looks to be fine, tho i'd suggest picking up something like the Canon 85 1.2 or Sigma 85 1.4 - that will make a big difference I think. Brightening at all is best avoided in any low key / high contrast images, as M says, it'll blow the noise right up.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Mar 7, 2012)

analog.universe said:


> ...I might even get to have some DOF occasionally!  :lmao:



DOF???????? that's CRAZY talk dude!!


----------



## framebyframe (Mar 20, 2012)

Sorry to bump a semi-old thread, but I signed up here to make a similar post and didn't think it would be worthwhile making a new thread over it when this one is already quite similar.

I'm a professional photographer and have been shooting with the 5DII for close to 3 years now (since June 2009) and it's plenty used at this point but still works the same as the first day out of the box.  However, it's currently at 139,000 actuations and Canon rates the "life expectancy" for the 5DII at 150,000 so I'm debating on whether or not it would be worth the upgrade to either the 5D Mark III or the 1D X (or if my money would be better spent on new lenses instead).  Btw, I primarily shoot landscapes, nature and wildlife photos and sell them to stores, businesses, card and calendar companies as well as individual customers in a variety of formats -- I don't do portraits, weddings or sports.  So, *first question*: given this info, how worthwhile do you think it would be to upgrade to either the 5DIII or 1D X at this point?  *Second question*: regarding nature, landscape and wildlife photography, if shooting the same subjects with the 5D Mark II, 5D Mark III and 1D X, would there be a significant or noticeable difference in the quality of the shots taken with the three (assuming all three photographed the same thing)?

Besides nature photography I also shoot live shows and concerts, mostly at small club-like venues with low light, which is always when I run into the most problems and limitations with my camera for much the same reason that EverydayLaVan explained with his 7D.  There's usually a LOT of motion at the smaller gigs so I have to shoot at a fast shutter speed to avoid blur and I either end up with dark, underexposed shots that require a lot of post-processing work or I crank the ISO and end up with extremely noisy pictures (with lots of hot/stuck pixels to manually edit out).  I see plenty of other concert photographers who take 500+ shots and upload them the same night of the show or the next day without any editing other than maybe a batch process to resize them and add watermarks.  I can't do that since very few of mine are ever good to go straight from the camera and typically each photo requires 2 - 5 minutes of individual editing, so it can take ages to get my photos up.  I shoot gigs primarily with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 prime, the Canon 15mm f/2.8 fisheye and the Canon 24-105mm f/4 L zoom lens.  So my *third question* is: would I see a drastic improvement in this respect if I upgraded to either the 5D Mark III or the 1D X?

Now, I've been looking at *this chart* that compares the stats of the 5D Mark II, the 5D Mark III, the 1D X, the D800 and the D4 and I guess I'm still having a hard time justifying spending $3,000 - $7,000 on a new camera.  I get the impression that the Nikon D800 may seem like the best value for the money but selling all of my current Canon lenses, buying new Nikon lenses to replace them and switching over to Nikon from now on doesn't seem like it would be worth it just to get that camera.

Meanwhile, I guess I'm not sure why the 5D Mark III is still being touted as an "advanced amateur" body whereas the 1D X is for "real professionals."  *Fourth question*: in what scenarios would the 1D X be considered a necessity over the 5D Mark III (or at least be considered a very worthy investment/worth the extra $3,300 in cost)?  *And finally*, in what scenarios (if any) would it be a necessity (or at least very worthwhile) to purchase the 5D Mark III as a replacement for the 5D Mark II?

Sorry for the lengthy post, but if anyone could offer me some help on these topics it would be *much* appreciated!


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 20, 2012)

sharpiegoddess said:


> Thanks everyone for the input.
> I may consider the mkII now.
> It's difficult to say no to all the mkIII hype.



It really depends on what you need the camera for. Try the mk2, if you are happy with the autofocus for what you shoot (it works fine for me), go for it.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 20, 2012)

framebyframe said:


> *Second question*: regarding nature, landscape and wildlife photography, if shooting the same subjects with the 5D Mark II, 5D Mark III and 1D X, would there be a significant or noticeable difference in the quality of the shots taken with the three (assuming all three photographed the same thing)?



if the light is right and composition well chosen, for most prints and even large projections: no
the mk3 has an advantage over the mk2 when shooting fast moving animals, such as birds, bats, in terms of the AF. Not saying the mk2 is not up to the job, but it will need more practice, and sometimes more luck. The fastest I ever shot with the mk2 were seagulls and hummingbirds in flight.

With slightly slower subjects (horse races and the like), I never felt the mk2 was a limitation, not even the mk1 was.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 20, 2012)

> However, it's currently at 139,000 actuations and Canon rates the "life expectancy" for the 5DII at 150,000 so I'm debating on whether or not it would be worth the upgrade to either the 5D Mark III or the 1D X (or if my money would be better spent on new lenses instead)


Welcome aboard.  From what I've heard/read, that number is an 'average rate of failure', not a life expectancy.  It might last another 100,000 clicks.  And even so, the shutter is a serviceable and replaceable part.  You could probably get a new one for $250 (don't quote me on that).  



> regarding nature, landscape and wildlife photography, if shooting the same subjects with the 5D Mark II, 5D Mark III and 1D X, would there be a significant or noticeable difference in the quality of the shots taken with the three (assuming all three photographed the same thing)?


Hard to say.  The 5DmkIII just came out and the 1Dx isn't out yet (as far as I know).  If you're shooting at lower ISO, the difference probably won't be easily noticeable (or maybe not at all), but at higher ISO, the newer models will likely show less noise.  If you let that transfer to faster shutter speeds, then you are likely to see a difference in terms of the amount of camera shake blur.



> There's usually a LOT of motion at the smaller gigs so I have to shoot at a fast shutter speed to avoid blur and I either end up with dark, underexposed shots that require a lot of post-processing work or I crank the ISO and end up with extremely noisy pictures (with lots of hot/stuck pixels to manually edit out).


Underexposing and trying to fix in post, is almost always going to be worse than just raising the ISO in the first place.  There are plenty of great ways to reduce noise and if there is any consistency to your photos, the process can be largely automatic.  As for hot/stuck pixels, if they are consistent, the process of fixing them can be automated as well.  



> would I see a drastic improvement in this respect if I upgraded to either the 5D Mark III or the 1D X?


Well, they are saying that the level of noise, at high ISO is less with those cameras, so if that is a major concern of yours...then you might see a lot of improvement.  Will it be 'drastic'...I can't say.  



> Meanwhile, I guess I'm not sure why the 5D Mark III is still being touted as an "advanced amateur" body whereas the 1D X is for "real professionals." Fourth question: in what scenarios would the 1D X be considered a necessity over the 5D Mark III (or at least be considered a very worthy investment/worth the extra $3,300 in cost)?


The difference is the 'level' of the body.  The 1Dx is a pro level body.  It has all of Canon's best technology and it's made to be a tool that professionals can count on.  If you haven't compared a pro body to a lower level camera, I'd suggest you get into a store and see for yourself.  These pro bodies are build like tanks and can shoot in a pouring rain.  



> in what scenarios (if any) would it be a necessity (or at least very worthwhile) to purchase the 5D Mark III as a replacement for the 5D Mark II?


If you want the ability to shoot at higher ISO levels, with less noise, then the upgrade might be worth it.  If you need duel card slots (more important for some than others).  If you find that the AF system in the mkII, just isn't up to where you need it to be.  If you just want to be the kid on the block with the newest, bestest camera...:er:.


----------

