kaycephoto Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I've used all 3 bodies & would characterize myself as a very particular event/wedding shooter with a sports background. I'll speak from my personal experience, though there may be subjective opinions below:
At base ISO, 1Ds Mark III has the best colours & tones out of the bodies mentioned by the OP. There's something about the tonal falloff on that body (most noticeable on a high-DR sunrise/sunset shot of the sky) that's just beautiful when exposed right in decent light. Also, has the best (which to me is, most neutral/natural) skin tones of the three. 1DX also has very good tones & colours, it's just slightly off from what the 1Ds Mark II delivers at ISO100 - at ISO800 & above, the 1DX produces noticeably better colours as well as file integrity in shadows/details. At base ISO, I find 5D Mark III files to be the worst of the three in terms of producing natural colours & skin tones, and the issue gets progressively worst as you raise the ISO. (Disclaimer: all in all, I respected but didn't like my 5D Mark III much at all - sold it as soon as I could find a suitor after testing it for 2 weeks intensively. I think it often over-saturates images unnaturally, while also rendering 'plastic' or lifeless skin tones in challenging light.)
In terms of AF, both the 5D Mark III & 1DX put the older 1Ds Mark III body to shame in terms of AF accuracy & reliability in different/challenging low-light situations. Canon really stepped it up with the release of the 5D Mark III & 1DX, though the 1-series flagship definitely has better lens drive capabilities for long lenses & using AI Servo in general.
Now returning to the OP's questions - I think the 1DX would provide better AF response using super-teles relative to a 5D Mark III, but overall it would only represent a marginal upgrade if AF is the only measure. 2nd, although the 1DX has less pixels than the 1Ds Mark III (which was a big concern of mine when I first switched), there's definitely something about the 1DX files that made me not miss my 1Ds Mark III at all.. I think it's in part due to the new AF module of the 1DX producing consistently sharper photos & also the improved sensor lending its characteristics to the files themselves, but with all other things being equal I find the 18MP 1DX files to have just as much detail as the 21MP 1Ds Mark III. In a nutshell, I think 1DX files are punchy & contrast-y, while still being natural, whereas I felt I'd have to do more to manipulate 1Ds Mark III files to achieve the same cinematic 'feel'
When all the considerations (dual CF, better screen, best high-ISO performance in Canon-land, spot AF using any focus point, 1-series lens drive, most flexible RAW files at any ISO, etc) are rolled into one, I think the easy answer for me was the 1DX - you just have to decide if its improvements over the 5D Mark III are worth the $2000-2500 difference or not.
|