Canon 1D X vs. 5D Mark III

[EverydayLaVan]

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 – Everyday LaVan Photography
Settings:
Shutter: 100
ISO: 6400
f/2.8
Most were brightened trememendously.

 

[MLeeK]

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 – Everyday LaVan Photography
Settings:
Shutter: 100
ISO: 6400
f/2.8
Most were brightened trememendously.

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[framebyframe]

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]

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]

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]

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:.