the lonely photographer wrote:
I recently acquired one with a slight discount, having upgraded from 7D's,  without stating the obvious, the camera amazes me. I pretty much put away the speedlites for much of my work. ISO 1600 is pretty much where things are  and the images still look great. Focusing is mindblowing especially for the fashion shows I  shoot.
I am impressed with this camera,
The guys or gals that own this camera, are there tips or weakness'es that I should be aware of? whats your favorite use for this camera?

If you convert Raws with Canon software, you can go higher on the ISO.  While retouched, this image was shot at 6400 ISO

Paul pK wrote:
Canon's op dog camera, so as already said it better be amazingly good

I have no personal experience with it (Nikon shooter) but gnerally speaking bodies like the D1X and Nikon F4S are more sports and PJ, then studio orientated.

So here are tips and feedback from a sportsguy

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2678

Someone mentioned the 5DIII so FYI here's a discussion on that body from the same (sportphotographer's) site

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_di … ?tid=39974

Lots of tips re:1dx.    Thanks

sublime LightWorks wrote:
Yes....I have a 1Dx and a 5DmkIII and use the 1Dx about 3:1 compared to the 5DmkIII.  Factor in the latest firmware that added about a dozen excellent enhancements (exposure comp in manual mode....YES!), yes its worth it.

One very overlooked advantage of the 1Dx is the battery system drives the AF on lenses faster than all other Canon cameras....a real plus in shooting moving targets.

-B

Exposure comp in manual mode is how all cameras are going to operate soon.

Does it switch to 400 ISO if you put a speed light on it or does the ISO still move?

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

Exposure comp in manual mode is how all cameras are going to operate soon.

Does it switch to 400 ISO if you put a speed light on it or does the ISO still move?

Good question...

Joseph Peffer wrote:
Much sharper than the 5d mk lll

Really? I've not heard that said literally anywhere before. Do you have some 100% crops from RAW which show that?

When I tested the two, I didn't notice a sharpness difference..

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
Really? I've not heard that said literally anywhere before. Do you have some 100% crops from RAW which show that?

When I tested the two, I didn't notice a sharpness difference..

And to be honest..... 'much sharpen than' comments about DSLRs in this day and age are pretty much bollocks. Especially comparing them between 5D3 and 1DX.

And people arguing about sharpness, IQ and noise etc. that only ever post 640px on the longest side for the web... hilarious.

Drew Smith Photography wrote:
And to be honest..... 'much sharpen than' comments about DSLRs in this day and age are pretty much bollocks.

That was my thought too. Even a camera without an AA filter isn't "much sharper than".

Joseph Peffer wrote:
Its definitely worth it. If I went back to Canon the only body I would get is the 1dx. I don't like canons half-bodies but they do pro-bodies right. Much sharper than the 5d mk lll and better ISO results. Its just a powerhouse. I would take it over the d4 actually, and many pro's like Walter Ioos went from Nikon pro bodies to the 1dx when it was released. Its better for video to, but for the price tag I would get a professional camcorder system if you want video. Other than that its the best pro body on the market currently.

You can get pretty much get new bodies on ebay for around $5200 if your lucky. D4 is now $4800 new.

Complete BS. Sorry man.

Have you actually used both the 5D III and 1Dx?

First off, neither of those two cameras are "the best PRO" bodies on the market. Second if you can see a sharpness difference between the two I would love to find out how.

Leighthenubian wrote:

Complete BS. Sorry man.

Have you actually used both the 5D III and 1Dx?

First off, neither of those two cameras are "the best PRO" bodies on the market. Second if you can see a sharpness difference between the two I would love to find out how.

. I upgraded from a 7 D.  Using the same lens 24-70 2.8 L. V1,  the 1dx shots are definitely sharper all things being equal,   I attribute that to more focusing accuracy,  for what I shoot, I now have only a few turkeys oof shots per thousand.  I can't say anything about the 5d3  from lack of experience. The determinant factor in my choice is catching the fashion runway shows in crummy light, and shooting track meets. Is it worth it? Dunno yet. I just got. The money shot is easier to get now.

the lonely photographer wrote:

. I upgraded from a 7 D.  Using the same lens 24-70 2.8 L. V1,  the 1dx shots are definitely sharper all things being equal,   I attribute that to more focusing accuracy,  for what I shoot, I now have only a few turkeys oof shots per thousand.  I can't say anything about the 5d3  from lack of experience. The determinant factor in my choice is catching the fashion runway shows in crummy light, and shooting track meets. Is it worth it? Dunno yet. I just got. The money shot is easier to get now.

Take a look at this: https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=921854 some of these shots were at 12,800 iso.

the lonely photographer wrote:

. I upgraded from a 7 D.  Using the same lens 24-70 2.8 L. V1,  the 1dx shots are definitely sharper all things being equal,   I attribute that to more focusing accuracy,  for what I shoot, I now have only a few turkeys oof shots per thousand.  I can't say anything about the 5d3  from lack of experience. The determinant factor in my choice is catching the fashion runway shows in crummy light, and shooting track meets. Is it worth it? Dunno yet. I just got. The money shot is easier to get now.

LOL the 7D??

Listen, that wasn't exactly Canon's shining star and there is a big difference between that camera and the 1Dx...and all the other 1D's that came before it right back to the N.

I know because I had that camera as well.

Leighthenubian wrote:

LOL the 7D??

Listen, that wasn't exactly Canon's shining star and there is a big difference between that camera and the 1Dx...and all the other 1D's that came before it right back to the N.

I know because I had that camera as well.

you bought it because everybody says it's good bang for the buck.

the lonely photographer wrote:

you bought it because everybody says it's good bang for the buck.

I bought it as a backup and for video, never because it was "sharper" than anything else.

Leighthenubian wrote:

LOL the 7D??

Listen, that wasn't exactly Canon's shining star and there is a big difference between that camera and the 1Dx...and all the other 1D's that came before it right back to the N.

I know because I had that camera as well.

The 7D with the new 24-70 2.8L MKII is a lethal combination. I can't post a full size image here, but what I can say is that the level of sharpness and detail is not far behind my D800!

The 7D is the best ever pro level DX camera produced to date!

Leighthenubian wrote:

I bought it as a backup and for video, never because it was "sharper" than anything else.

Well that too.  supposed to be good for video,   never tried it

London Fog wrote:

The 7D with the new 24-70 2.8L MKII is a lethal combination. I can't post a full size image here, but what I can say is that the level of sharpness and detail is not far behind my D800!

The 7D is the best ever pro level DX camera produced to date!

I've been wanting a 7D for a long time. I just can't afford one right now. Maybe when the new one comes out the price on the old one will go down .

London Fog wrote:

The 7D with the new 24-70 2.8L MKII is a lethal combination. I can't post a full size image here, but what I can say is that the level of sharpness and detail is not far behind my D800!

The 7D is the best ever pro level DX camera produced to date!

It's a nice body...I think in your case it has more to do with the lens. You could put the 24-70 II on anything and get good results.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:

Really? I've not heard that said literally anywhere before. Do you have some 100% crops from RAW which show that?

When I tested the two, I didn't notice a sharpness difference..

I'm pretty sure that there's no way for one body to be sharper than another.


There is one way in which there could be a visual difference which is pixel size and how that reacts to sharpening settings.

Moving from the 5D1 to 5D2 years ago, there was an obvious difference in how much sharpening the 5D2 could take in LR. I bet if you took normal sharpening settings for a 5D3 and then applied them to a 1DX image, it would be distinctly sharper, not because the image is sharper, but because you're not applying the equivalent settings.

Leighthenubian wrote:

It's a nice body...I think in your case it has more to do with the lens. You could put the 24-70 II on anything and get good results.

That's for sure.