Canon 1D X vs. 5D Mark III

[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...

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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...

Umadbro?

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

 

[EverydayLaVan]

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]

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.

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]

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: