Canon 1D X vs. 5D Mark III

[greybeard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[sharpiegoddess]

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.

Thanks!

 

[o hey tyler]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[MLeeK]

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]

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.