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.
As previously mentioned, the 1D X’s low-light performance also backs up its positioning as a sports shooter. With an impressive score of 2786 ISO, it outstrips both its predecessors significantly, indicating that the 1D X’s combination of a larger sensor (vs the 1D Mark IV), a new metering system, and the broadest sensitivity range of the three cameras (ISO 50 to 204,800, enhanced) is delivering on its promise. Combined with the continuous shooting speed improvements, the impressive ISO performance will satisfy any sports photographer, though they may balk at the $1,800 price differential between the $4,999 1D Mark IV and the $6,800 1D X.
The 1D X’s color depth performance was also solid with a DxOMark Portrait Score of 23.8 bits. The score indicates that the camera will be able to match the 1Ds Mark III in its ability to provide a range of vivid and accurate colors. In comparison with the 1D Mark IV, it scored 1 bit higher, which translates into 2/3 of a stop better in terms of delivering maximum color sensitivity.
The Landscape Scores indicate that there should be no noticeable difference in dynamic range across the three cameras.
When comparing the 1D X with its lower-end sibling, the midrange Canon EOS 5D Mark III, we can see that the sensors are fairly similar in performance, which is no surprise as the 5D Mark III (released in a similar timeframe to the 1D X) has inherited many of its big brother’s new technologies.
The 5D Mark III’s full-frame sensor is slightly higher in resolution at 22.3 megapixels vs. the 1D X’s 18 megapixel sensor, but both turn in very similar DxOMark sensor scores. In fact, one-point difference between the overall scores of the two cameras is negligible as are the differences between the Portrait and Landscape Scores. The more significant difference is the Sports scores, where the 1D X scores ½ stop better.
The 1D X’s most obvious competitor in the professional DSLR space is the Nikon D4 and its predecessor, the Nikon D3s. Based on their sensor scores, it looks like the Nikon D4, which was announced a few months after the 1D X and also hit the market this summer, can deliver better sensor performance across the board (and sells for $800 less than the 1D X), whereas the Nikon D3s (which sells for roughly $1,600 less than the 1D X) is much more similar, though the three cameras perform similarly in low light. Keep in mind, of course that the 1D X and D4 have significantly improved features sets, with both offering higher resolution, faster burst-mode shooting, full HD video shooting at 30/25/24 fps, broader sensitivity ranges, as well as nice touches such as a second CF memory card slot, built-in Ethernet connectivity, and optional WiFi. Also note that the D4 has a lower resolution sensor than the 1D X, fewer autofocus points, and can’t match its 12 fps speed in continuous shooting mode.
The tests in which the D4 outpaced the 1D X most significantly are in dynamic range and color depth, although at just under 1 bit difference on the latter, you won’t see a dramatic difference between the two, even if it should be noticeable. The score does translate into a 2/3 of a stop benefit with the D4, but in reality any score above 22 bits is quite good.
For landscape shooters, however, the 1.3 Ev difference between the D4 and 1D X in dynamic range will translate into better details in highlights and shadows, especially at lower ISOs. At ISO 1600 and above, the differences become negligible. Furthermore, the 16 megapixel Sony APS-C sensor (in the Pentax K5 and the Nikon D7000) performs 2 stops better on this test.