As a sports photographer I'm trying to figure the direction that Canon is going. Seems like they are phasing out the entire 1.3 crop factor format in favor of full frame and 1.6 (7D).
Does anyone have any experience with the 1DX that also owned a Mark IV? After cropping is the quality and resolution of the 1DX file about the same as the Mark IV?
Will Canon improve the sensor of the next generation 7D so much to attract those of us who need reach?
Have and use both bodies. Have not noticed any issue with cropping the ff 1D-X. Frankly I was originally concerned moving away from the 1.3 factor with the X but it just has not been a problem. The X offers so much more and is not an issue even with the 400L 2.8 IS attached. The difference requiring cropping isn't worth mentioning IMHO.
I had them both with me yesterday while taking photos of Bald Eagles. The 1DIV was on a 500/4L IS and the 1DX was on a 100-400L IS. I used the 500L for all images. I think I'll go back this coming weekend and try the 1DX with 500/4L IS + 1.4x III. I want to compare how well it tracks the birds with trees in the background. The 1DIV lost track frequently when the birds flew below the "tree line".
Here's two examples from yesterday, 1DIV + 500/4L IS, hand held, no IS. I'm pretty sure I posted the first one it in another thread, but I can't find it now.
MCams wrote:
As a sports photographer I'm trying to figure the direction that Canon is going. Seems like they are phasing out the entire 1.3 crop factor format in favor of full frame and 1.6 (7D).
Does anyone have any experience with the 1DX that also owned a Mark IV? After cropping is the quality and resolution of the 1DX file about the same as the Mark IV?
Will Canon improve the sensor of the next generation 7D so much to attract those of us who need reach?
As always thanks for your opinions.
If you have to crop hard on the 1D X files, you will lose nearly all the advantage. The 1D IV has a FF equivalent resolution of around 27MP, so in FL situations you are giving up a lot of reach on the 1D X - 10.8MP vs 16MP when cropped to 1.3x FOV. 1D X counters with having cleaner files so handles the cropping well. At low ISO (< 1600) the 1D IV will have similar IQ and can reveal more detail when FL limited. AT high ISO the 1D X is noticeably better and it's about even when FL limited - what you lose in resolution you gain in much cleaner files, so effective res is about the same.
This is why I went for the 5D III, really only gives up the high frame rate and about 2/3 stop in noise at high ISO compared to 1D X, and is only about 10% behind the 1D IV for reach when FL limited, which you won't notice. It is noticeably cleaner than the 1D IV at high ISO too.
Some talk of 7D sensor being all new and much better, but it's just talk at this stage and it appears we won't see 7D until second half of the year.
As a sports photographer, there are aspect of the 1DX that surpass the 1DIV. For me it's primarily the better AF consistency and greater flexibility setting up the AF points for various purposes. High ISO performance is also better, which means you can use a 1.4X TC at one stop higher ISO to make up the lost reach compared to the 1DIV. When shooting typical field sports with the 1DIV, I rarely used the TC. This past year, once I switched to the 1DX, I used the TC a lot.
FWIW, I was digging through some 2007 archive shots made with the 1DIII, cropping some quite severely for 8x10 prints. Yet the files held up well. I think the answer about cropping will have to do a lot to do with personal expectations and also how you shoot. Is it in-camera Jpegs or conversions from RAW? This point is significant IMO, as even with the 1DX, there is much better fine detail retention from RAW conversions than from in-camera Jpeg. From my 1DX in-camera Jpeg tests, at ISOs around 3200 and lower, it's best to turn off high ISO NR if you want to retain detail.
I moved from a 1D4 to the 1DX, I use the camera for fast moving sports. The 1DX autofocus system and improved low light performance exceeds the 1D4 to a point where I felt they were really not comparable in any fair sense.
For indoor sports where I'm really not FL limited the 1DX is an awesome body. The files are much cleaner then the 1D4 and I get a 2MP boost in resolution. It's outdoors that I miss the 1D4. For field sports I am much more FL limited and you can easily see the advantage of the denser pixels.
I'm hoping Canon sees the 7D2 as more of a replacement for the 1D4 and specs it as such because it could be a killer companion to the 1DX.
One camera and one lense. For 3 years I've been able to handhold this combination all day. Quickdraw within seconds to get the shot. Hold camera and lense in my lap while driving to pick off ducks in canals at a moments notice. Crawl on my belly in mudd with no problem. Speed, accuracy, beautiful files, and added focal length at an affordable price. I don't know of any combination of camera and lense that will give me the same scenario as what I've been shooting with the last three years. While the big gun birders are fiddling with tripods and big bulky lenses on the photo deck, I manage to pick off birds in flight with ease before they fire there shutters because of the time to focus and set the heavy equipment. I've had more fun and excitement with this combination to where it ought to be illegal. It's been a terrific ride I hope never ends or canon has a real suitable economic replacement for this combo. And to top it off, this camera with it's medium crop factor takes excellent landscape scenes after a day of birding with a change of lenses. And what is it? Canon 1D Mark IV and the Canon 400/5.6 lens. Will be remembered as one of canon's finest machines.
schlotz wrote:
Have and use both bodies. Have not noticed any issue with cropping the ff 1D-X. Frankly I was originally concerned moving away from the 1.3 factor with the X but it just has not been a problem. The X offers so much more and is not an issue even with the 400L 2.8 IS attached. The difference requiring cropping isn't worth mentioning IMHO.
The 1Dx is just better. The 1DX for BIF and aircraft AF is more accurate and provides significantly more keepers. OOF shots on a crop are just that. Now it would be interesting if Canon produced a 1.3 crop 1Dx?...
jjoejr wrote:
One camera and one lense. For 3 years I've been able to handhold this combination all day. Quickdraw within seconds to get the shot. Hold camera and lense in my lap while driving to pick off ducks in canals at a moments notice. Crawl on my belly in mudd with no problem. Speed, accuracy, beautiful files, and added focal length at an affordable price. I don't know of any combination of camera and lense that will give me the same scenario as what I've been shooting with the last three years. While the big gun birders are fiddling with tripods and big bulky lenses on the photo deck, I manage to pick off birds in flight with ease before they fire there shutters because of the time to focus and set the heavy equipment. I've had more fun and excitement with this combination to where it ought to be illegal. It's been a terrific ride I hope never ends or canon has a real suitable economic replacement for this combo. And to top it off, this camera with it's medium crop factor takes excellent landscape scenes after a day of birding with a change of lenses. And what is it? Canon 1D Mark IV and the Canon 400/5.6 lens. Will be remembered as one of canon's finest machines. ...Show more →
+1 to all of the above.
For over a decade, I bought every new 1D series camera as soon as it was available and every new xxD (and 7D) camera as soon as it was available. The 1DX has been the first new camera in either of those two series that I've decided to skip.
For my shooting, which is often focal length limited, the upgrade that was most significant to me was the move from the 1D Mark III to the 1D Mark IV, and the reason why that upgrade was so significant was because of the increase in pixel density from the 10 MP 1D Mark III sensor to the 16 MP 1D Mark IV sensor. That increase in pixel density allowed me to put more pixels on the subject in my focal length-limited situations, and, in turn, it allowed me to shoot with physically smaller and lighter lenses. Being able to use physically smaller and lighter lenses has given me a level of mobility that I could never have with larger and heavier lenses, and it has given me the ability to get shots that I could not have gotten with physically larger and heavier lenses.
While I would love to have many of the features/improvements that the 1DX offers and while I would be willing to spend $7000 for a new body, I will not go back to using a camera with the pixel density that only matches what I had 4 years ago with the 1D Mark III because I'm not willing to use the bigger and heavier lenses that I'd have to use with a 1DX. The ID Mark IV AF has never let me down, even in the challenging situations of shooting birds in flight moving toward the camera with busy backgrounds. The image quality is excellent, and I almost never need to shoot at ISO above 1600. I'm confident that I will buy a 1DX series body somewhere down the road, but it won't be until the 1DX Mark II or 1DX Mark III matches the pixel density that the 1D Mark IV gives me now. For a good number of years, I felt a "need" to buy every new camera just because it was new and improved. I think that, now, I'm better able to evaluate whether the improvements are ones that will actually make a difference in what I shoot, and, in this case, what I've decided that what I would lose with the 1DX pixel density is greater than what I would gain with other features of the 1DX.
Les I've always admired your work and your attitude on here. You said it alot better than I. Here's an example, if it shows up, as to why I love the IV and lightweight 400mm. Lift and fire within seconds to get the shot. No comparison to your work, but you know exactly what I'm talking about. Have a good one Les.
RobertLynn wrote:
Trust me, I Very briefly used an x.
I wanted th mk iv to be better...I have 2 of them...
The x wins, even if I don't want it to
If you hurry, you can get one for the price of two and a half.
I'm in transition, with a 1DX and a 1DIV. I sold my 1DsIII and some primo Alt glass to pay for the 1DX (and 24-70L II). It won't be so easy to get a second 1DX.
Of course, the 1DIV still works quite well, thank you. I plan to compare my 1DX and 1DIV "head to head" this weekend for shooting eagles: 1DX with 500/4L IS + 1.4x III vs. 1DIV with 500/4L IS; and, 1DX with 300/2.8L IS + 2x III, vs. 1DIV with 300/2.8L IS + 1.4x III.
P.S. I used the 1DIV with 500L last weekend with great success!
Mr. Jim, I would love to see a static shot of an eagle of 1DX with 500mm and one with 1DIV with 500mm if time permits and you can switch bodies quick enough. No tele's. Then crop to size and compare. And give us YOUR opinion on the variables. Tanx.
John
My main goal is to compare the two cameras at more or less the same 'optical reach'. I'll try to do the same-lens comparison, too. Last weekend, the 1DX was on a 100-400L, while the 1DIV was on the 500L - no images from the 1DX.
Also, I plan to use an EF 40/2.8 as a "lens cap". Let's see what that might bring in.
