1DX with 500mm f/4L IS II + 2XII @1000mm f/8 1/1600sec ISO 800
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8171/8...20f0f5fe_c.jpg
BP1Q1725 by RL One Photography, on Flickr
MKIV with 500mm f/4L IS II + 2XII @1300mm f/8 1/1600sec ISO 640http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8314/8...3cc8c866_c.jpg
CQ0H0473 by RL One Photography, on Flickr
A reviewer I'm not, so I did the best I could to match the shots and exposures!
So, let me know what you all think!
Rich
Rich,
I went to you're flicker posts, on the gulls it looks as if the 1DX was better, on others it appeared the 1D IV was better.
You really have to pixel peep hard to see a difference, either camera is going to give you a great product. The wife's laptop just doesn't have a big enough screen to do this with, I will get the big monitor out later.
What are you're thoughts on the 1D X w/ 1.4 vs the 1D IV now?
Rick
The 500mm 2x III doesn't appear to bad at all.
It's the 2XII not 2XIII, and the 1.4XIII was the version III.
I have to say that the images from the 1DX have a really nice clean clarity and quality to them as compared to the MKIV files. The white balance and whites are better on the 1DX too. I think the 1DX also has better contrast and colors as compared to the MKIV.
I also like the separation from the background better with the 1DX, as well as the thinner and creamier bokeh that the 1Dx renders.
It seems like the MKIV files needs more tweaking to get them to look better.
Wouldn't the bokeh be a result of FF shallower dof vs the crop, not necessarily the camera.
I miss read the 2x. I wonder how much better the 500mm will be with the 2x III. Maybe very usable.
So should I be trading up to the 1d x from my 1d IV?
Yes, that, plus 700mm vs 650mm. That's why I choose f/7.1 on the 1DX, and f/6.3 on the MKIV on one of the sets of images.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I think the 2XIII will be even better.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
That's a good question, based on my experiences so far, I would have to say that you can gain back the crop factor of the MKIV by using the 1.4XIII on the 1DX, and then have a better camera overall, that is full frame, focuses faster, has higher fps, and produces cleaner images and handles higher ISO's better.
Of course, you can't gain back the entire crop factor, but the trade-off seems worth it to me.
Edited: I think the other consideration is to get the 600mm vs 500mm which also adds quite a bit of cost.
Remember, all things being equal the same DOF will render the same noise levels (raising ISO acordingly) regardless of format size. I am not suprised that the 1Dx has better noise with extenders, just wasn't sure about sharpness at lower ISO's.
But something that is just as important to me as IQ is the AF performance with extenders, which body do you think has the edge with extenders Rich?
The extender does not change the DOF in the sense of increasing it. If you took a picture without the extender and then put the extender on the Bokeh stays the same but there is less background. Same thing happens with a crop body. There is no advantage in Bokeh with a FF if you have to use a extender vs a crop body. The only advantage is if you use a faster lens.
John.
Thanks John, but then I'm not sure why the bokeh looks thinner and creamier on the 1DX?Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGass
As far as the AF goes, the 1Dx has the advantage with and without extenders. As far as the 1DX with extender, vs. the MKIV without extender, that would be a tougher call and I'm not sure. The 1DX just seems so crisp and it locks focus with confidence.
Here's two more:
1DX 500mmII +1.4XIII @700mm f/7.1 1/1600sec, ISO 800
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8309/8...4879b4b4_c.jpg
BP1Q1301 by RL One Photography, on Flickr
MKIV 500mmII @650mm f/7.1 1/1600sec, ISO 800
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8173/8...57cc2c81_c.jpg
CQ0H0082 by RL One Photography, on Flickr
It just looks like to me that the longer focal length is magnifing the background more, not smoother.
Thanks for the info,
John.