According to DXOMark, the EOS-1D X improved upon its two predecessors and produces the best of Canon’s full-frame sensors.

"Not surprisingly, given its newer and larger sensor, the 1D X delivers significantly better image quality than the 1D Mark IV, beating its overall sensor score of 74 by eight points, and should deliver comparable image quality to the higher-resolution 1Ds Mark III, which it beat by one point. This indicates that the 1D X is well positioned to meet its role as both Canon’s top-of-the-line studio camera as well as being the camera maker’s go-to camera for the professional sports shooter."
Read full comparison

Canon EOS-1D X available at:

B&H Photo | Amazon.com | EOS-1D X Review

The 1Dx is a very good camera in all the metrics, except the one where Canon is just plain behind and has made only marginal improvements in the last (nearly) decade.

Let's wish them well in their R&D for the next generation of sensor tech!

It is what it is. It's clear that Canon is fine for high ISO, but not fine for now ISO.

Nothing we didn't know really....

I'm glad that I got the 5d3 in the end. The extra features of a 1dx wouldn't have given me much and high ISO isn't that much different between the two cameras.

As noted many times, high ISO scores have not been moving up particularly recently (since the d3s). It would seem that everyone has pretty much the same performance (to within half a stop). It'll be interesting to see where the next high ISO increase will come from...

If I had to have one camera and I was a general photographer (some weddings, some studio, some PR, some sports etc...), I would choose the 1dx over any other camera on the market Nikon or Canon. Overall I think it's the best camera of the market. Not necessarily the best for me, but just generally the best.

So all good for me, no need to upgrade my 1Ds3 as I rarely if ever go over 800 ISO

So far the 1DX has worked out well for me. For indoor low light sports and equestrian it has been amazing at 6400+.

I think for me the takeaway is that the image quality performance of all these cameras has crossed the point where they can all capture excellent images and the differences in the high end sensor scores are much less important. Given that, my preference leans towards the camera that is most capable for getting the shot in the heat of the moment, and the 1D X is darn good at that.

Here's a little comparison that you all may be interested in that I did a month or two ago. Canon 1DX (Canon's best) vs the D800E (best DR, best overall) vs the D3S (best high ISO). First up are full frame images then a 100% crop comparison. All tripod mounted, live view focused, identical exposure settings, etc. Shot in RAW, processed in LR 4.2, all sharpening and luminance NR zeroed out. Color NR at 30.

First pairing is 1D X and D3S at ISO 25,600. Second pairing is the 1D X and D800E shot with underexposed foreground then with +3 exposure added in LR.


1DX ISO 25k full frame

If you interpolate the 1DX ISO 100 image crop to the size of the D800E crop, it becomes embarrasingly obvious how big the difference is, even at a moderate 3 stop push.

This doesn't seem to mean much. The 1Dx is no better than the 1DsIII in terms of D.R. or color depth. It only improves in terms of noise apparently.

NOT a huge improvement IMO.

ronno wrote:
This doesn't seem to mean much. The 1Dx is no better than the 1DsIII in terms of D.R. or color depth. It only improves in terms of noise apparently.

NOT a huge improvement IMO.

For my work a step backwards as it has fewer pixels too.

dhphoto wrote:
ronno wrote:
This doesn't seem to mean much. The 1Dx is no better than the 1DsIII in terms of D.R. or color depth. It only improves in terms of noise apparently.

NOT a huge improvement IMO.

For my work a step backwards as it has fewer pixels too.

1dx was never supposed to be a replacement for the 1ds3, even though Canon said it was. It's a generalist camera, for the "I do a bit of everything" photographer, or wedding or sports professionals.

If they'd have "fixed" the low ISO DR they might have got 1ds3 owners to switch, but I dunno... I'm not sure if I would if it were me. The 1ds3 is still Canons best overall studio camera, although the 5d2 is definitely the best value studio camera if you wanted a new studio camera.

I switched. Just sold my 1DsIII to help pay for my 1DX.

P.S. I also have a 5DII.

These results do not look very good...a good camera certainly, but no noticeable improvement.

The 1DX is a beast,the best camera canon has ever made and probably the best camera in its price range available....I have had most every canon body and the 1DX is simply the best

I've been using Canon for many years and I am disturbed by the Sony sensors advantage in DR and in particular possibilities in shadow lifting. It gives new dimensions to postprocessing and I am not talking about HDR-like effects or any extreme PP, rather real world adjustments to make appealing imagery.

Last fall I got a NEX 5N to complement the 5D2. The NEX have no chance in replacing the 5D2 in handling, OVF, responsiveness, feel, FF-qualities and many other things. But for IQ in terms of DR the NEX files are so much more robust in PP. And now, this is what the latest generation of FF cams share from Nikon and Sony.

It's almost embarrassing. No one can take away the great IQ that a 5D2 or 5D3 (or the pro bodies) have produced and still can produce. But we are so much behind the latest improvements in digital sensor tech led by Sonys sensor department.

I am a manual lens user (95%), and the only thing that keep me with Canon is the flange distance - which is an historical coincidence nothing more - because of the adaptability to super quality alt lenses. And yes, the Canon TS range appeals too.

wfrank wrote:
I've been using Canon for many years and I am disturbed by the Sony sensors advantage in DR and in particular possibilities in shadow lifting. It gives new dimensions to postprocessing and I am not talking about HDR-like effects or any extreme PP, rather real world adjustments to make appealing imagery.

Last fall I got a NEX 5N to complement the 5D2. The NEX have no chance in replacing the 5D2 in handling, OVF, responsiveness, feel, FF-qualities and many other things. But for IQ in terms of DR the NEX files are so much more robust in PP. And now, this is what the latest generation of FF cams share from Nikon and Sony.

It's almost embarrassing. No one can take away the great IQ that a 5D2 or 5D3 (or the pro bodies) have produced and still can produce. But we are so much behind the latest improvements in digital sensor tech led by Sonys sensor department.

I am a manual lens user (95%), and the only thing that keep me with Canon is the flange distance - which is an historical coincidence nothing more - because of the adaptability to super quality alt lenses. And yes, the Canon TS range appeals too.

I don't really get it when people get disturbed or upset because there are others who own a camera with better DR or shadow lifting possibilities? Do you also get disturbed when other lenses are sharper or have less CA than the lenses you own? Or software or tripods ? Or is it only camera's that make you upset?
And the camera's you compare have nearly 3 years difference in age. So even if Canon had made a big progress in DR, your body wouldn't really be much better.
Suddenly it's only about DR in camera's!! A couple of years ago it was all about high ISO noise. I can't really see a problem you. Just buy the camera you like the best and can afford. Nearly all your lenses are non canon lenses also.
For me it's all about the system I buy into. And the sensor is only about 10-20% of that system. (as long as it's not useless)

FWIW, the test wasn't done to make files look good, if anything it was meant to be a torture test. No sharpening, no noise reduction.The ISO 25k shot was in a extremely dark room, 0.6 second exposure at f/4. It was so dark that we had to turn the lights on for the Nikon to even be able to focus via AF or live view. The window 3 stop push image would normally be a totally ruined shot if you had underexposed by 3 stops.

The fact that they are useable images that would be fine at moderate print sizes (even without correction) is a testament to how good all the cameras are. My assertion isn't that the 1D X is best, it's that it produces excellent results AND it does it in a package that is significantly more capable as a shooters camera.

I think that's what people love about the 1D X, it does the job of going out in the real world and capturing photos better than pretty much anything else available.

Lars Johnsson wrote:
I don't really get it when people get disturbed or upset because there are others who own a camera with better DR or shadow lifting possibilities? Do you also get disturbed when other lenses are sharper or have less CA than the lenses you own? Or software or tripods ? Or is it only camera's that make you upset?
And the camera's you compare have nearly 3 years difference in age. So even if Canon had made a big progress in DR, your body wouldn't really be much better.
Suddenly it's only about DR in camera's!! A couple of years ago it was all about high ISO noise. I can't really see a problem you. Just buy the camera you like the best and can afford. Nearly all your lenses are non canon lenses also.

I think you missed the point. This is a real improvement, not a gradual one, potentially affecting a large proportion of a days catch.

Yeah, you could talk about the necessity to get images perfectly exposed (but you'll need overcast skies or be into HDR or something), but that is not it. And if you shoot JPGs and your PP is limited to a curve adjustment the Sony sensors will seldom show its glory either.

I wont comment on the other (silly) things. But FYI my Canon L lenses does not improve the situation, but what's that got to do with anything? Do you find it degrading enjoying Zeiss lenses now?

Of course it's a real improvement. So are the difference in AF, High ISO, Software, Lenses, Tripods and a lot of other stuff we use every day

This DxO thing tells me as much about my 1DX as TDP ISO charts tell me about my lens performance...which is next to nothing.

In use I see fairly quickly what kind of performance my camera or lens delivers. In the end, that is all that should matter to me, right ?

However, I obviously see no harm in forumography discussions of sensor testing intricacies......that's also what camera gear forums are for.

Its wrong to claim that the Sony FF sensors are "better" than 1DX sensor (btw I am a big fan of recent Sony sensors). Based on DxoMark numbers 1DX is now the absolute best high ISO camera beating not only the Sony sensors but even the previous high-ISO champ i.e. D3s. Whereas the Sony sensors including D600 and D800 are the best low-ISO high resolution cameras. Which one is "better" depends on which aspect is more important to you. There is no clear winner.