Is 1DX significantly better than 1Ds M3?

Besides the exceptionally high FPS and ISO of 1DX, what differentiates it from 1Ds M3. Any hands-on perspectives from owners of both 1Ds M3 and 1DX? Thanks.

One of the biggest things for me is the auto iso. Now I am in M mode all the time. The forfinger wheel controls my shutter and the thumb wheel controls my av. And the camera sets the right iso. With the high iso bing so good that 25000 is usable or at least clean up able in LR that I set the limit to that. With the mk3 all I have is 1600 and no auto iso. I know it can go to 3000 but it was too noisy so I set the limit to 1600. The other big deal was custom buttons. With 1 push of a button I can switch from one shot to al servo I think all this was in the mk iv bu I am a ff guy.

The 1Dx has much better dark environment focus ability (unassisted) and the metering also appears to be more accurate in dark conditions (until it locks up!)

At the risk of being criticised again, I'll say that, IMHO, the 1Ds3 produces marginally better colours at low Iso usage...using "faithful" and unadjusted output.

Bob

Canon Bob wrote in post #14901037
The 1Dx has much better dark environment focus ability (unassisted) and the metering also appears to be more accurate in dark conditions (until it locks up!)

At the risk of being criticised again, I'll say that, IMHO, the 1Ds3 produces marginally better colours at low Iso usage...using "faithful" and unadjusted output.

Bob

In the AV mode, are your pictures getting better exposed with 1DX (considering its latest metering system)? Thanks.

The new metering system in the 1DX seems to be a bit more accurate at least for me.

Overall,

focus seems to be more accurate and faster

higher frame rate capabilities

new menu systems and other options available (ie new AF options)

video

higher dynamic range


Overall I would say if you use your camera outside of the studio where you'd have a need to go beyond iso 1600, the 1DX is a wonderful upgrade in many areas.

If you are only shooting in the studio, the 1dsmk3 is probably still a viable body, and will offer a larger file.

Each time I go to pick up the 1DX I fall in love with it even more. The more familiar I become with the menu systems, and customizing profiles and buttons for my workflow, my love grows even deeper.

If I were to shoot only in the studio and had to choose between each body? I still think I'd go with the 1DX. If massive file sizes were a true, 'need' beyond the 18 or 21 mp renting a mf body and dig back would be my next step. Since those occasions are few and far between the 1DX has more than met my expectations, and far exceeded everything I could have asked for. I have yet to find a shortcoming (other than file size) of the 1DX.

just my .02c

Well let's see some of your outstanding dynamic range photos from the 1Dx please.

yalemba wrote in post #14900650
Besides the exceptionally high FPS and ISO of 1DX, what differentiates it from 1Ds M3. Any hands-on perspectives from owners of both 1Ds M3 and 1DX? Thanks.

The Gig Ethernet jack is a differentiator for me, in most notable conjunction with the ability to shoot very high quality video. Jacking into the machine to transfer the huge files - still or video - is a joy - for me.

The speed of focus, when I am using auto focusing lenses, is significantly more fast. The flexibility of the 62 points of focus is becoming something I do like very much. Even with my manual lenses, finding the right focus is easier. They have really improved this area, dramatically so.

Two huge CF cards is a welcome change from the use of one CF and the pokey SD. I never did understand why they did that?

I am not personally seeing discernable difference in the image quality in normal ISO ranges, but I am also not prone to pixel peeping. I absolutely love my 1Ds III, but much of my shooting requires high ISO so this plays to one of the key strengths of the 1DX. The high frame rate is not something I give a hoot about.

I consider this to be a very much improved body with a very high uniformity of quality for the features provided. After lugging the 1Ds III around for over four years, my expectations were that I would retain the same image quality of stills (yes), retain the brutally reliable weather sealing (yes), build quality (yes) and add in extremely high quality 1080p video (allowing 29.59 min recordings instead of the stupid 12 minutes) (yes) and be starting out with another huge shutter count potential (yes). It is meeting my expectations and, in my world, worth the upgrade.

chmod

yalemba wrote in post #14901458
In the AV mode, are your pictures getting better exposed with 1DX (considering its latest metering system)? Thanks.

Based on a limited number of shots (sport) then I'd say yes. I really need Canon to sort out the spot metering to get to grips with subjects in darker surroundings though.

Bob

The focussing is on a different level, nailing the eyes in bad lighting on almost ever time, where the 1Ds MkIII often requires 2-3 shots.

And let's not forget buffer size, in practice quadrupling that of the 1 Ds MkIII.

For me the the 1D X has been a real revelation, not only by combining the best parts of the 1D and 1Ds, but big improvements across the line.

Canon Bob wrote in post #14901665
Based on a limited number of shots (sport) then I'd say yes. I really need Canon to sort out the spot metering to get to grips with subjects in darker surroundings though.

Bob

How do you like the matrix metering in 1Dx vis-a-vis 1Ds M3?

Canon Bob wrote in post #14901037
At the risk of being criticised again, I'll say that, IMHO, the 1Ds3 produces marginally better colours at low Iso usage...using "faithful" and unadjusted output.

Bob

If my sole goal was the studio, I would have happily stayed with the 1Ds3. It really does put out stunning files. I like the 1Ds3 enough that I kept it when I picked up the 1DX instead of trading it in or selling it.

That being said, the 1DX really destroys the 1Ds3 in just about everything else. I saw limitations with the focus of the 1Ds3, but learned to deal with them as much as possible. The 1DX is a ravenous beast that locks in the lowest of lighting, and in very low contrast. Even in severely back lit scenarios it seems to do extremely well for me.

Custom functions are plentiful, though I never felt cheated with the 1Ds3. However, the auto iso really allows for flexibility with the 1DX.

Auto WB on the 1Ds3 isn't anything to write home about, but the 1DX stays pretty darn close for everything I've shot, with the exception of low sodium bulbs, and to be honest, I think that is more the quality of that light than anything else as even a manual WB didn't impress me.

I don't care about video all that much, but on a flagship model, I guess it would be hard not to include it. Someday no doubt I'll use it, but not often. I've worked with video guys who have wanted video from the same camera settings, lens and location I'm shooting, so that will probably be the most likely scenario for me.

Metering seems more accurate than the 1Ds3, but I have not had them both in the exact same settings to really lay any real numbers out. They just seem to be "on the mark" for everything so far if I do my part. I'm guilty of leaving my light meter in my bag much of the time.

Aside from the much more usable iso, I think the focus has shocked me the most. The 1DX seems to be MUCH sharper with lenses than my 1Ds3. I'm not sure what the reason is, especially as I adjusted them in the 1Ds3, but a shallow DOF always seemed to be a bit difficult to get razor sharp images.

On the iso theme, I mentioned in the other thread that I've got iso 8000 images which I'm sending off for publication. With the 1Ds3, in general, I tried not to shoot above 1600. I'm not saying that 1600= 8000, but I will say the difference (to me) was staggering. I don't feel like I'm playing redheaded step child to Nikon in low light any more.

Stickman wrote in post #14904222
I think the focus has shocked me the most. The 1DX seems to be MUCH sharper with lenses than my 1Ds3.

This. It's been quite alarming (In a good way).

Mr Poole wrote in post #14904643
This. It's been quite alarming (In a good way).

I was wondering if it was just me, or if other people were seeing it coming off other 1D bodies.

Stickman wrote in post #14904222
The 1DX seems to be MUCH sharper with lenses than my 1Ds3.

I agree.

Shot my first wedding with the 1D X yesterday. In real life the resolution is on average higher than the 1Ds MkIII, despite fewer MP. The 1D X nails it almost every time. And faster.

The focus is quite remarkable - a quantum improvement over my 1Ds3....and I also love that body for other reasons not least of which has been sheer reliability despite truly nasty conditions.

I am seeing what you are seeing - a significantly higher hit rate of spot-on focus with the 1DX.

I was using my Zeiss primes on the 1Ds most of the time - this body is drawing me back to the notion of auto focus because it is so damn good.

chmod