Pixiq

Which camera is best for you? The EOS 1DX or the Canon EOS 600D? If you said "the first", read some - good - reasons why the second may be best for you.

Many people dream about having a top of the line professional camera to take pictures with. I don't. I rather travel light. So, although I am amazed with all the things the Canon EOS 1DX has to show (I've had one for some days, to play with), and even if I do like features found in the camera, I rather use a camera that is not as heavy, on my photography outings.

One note before you keep on reading: this is not a technical article about the camera. You'll find a lot of those on the web, detailed, with all the specifications you need to make a decision if this model interests you. I use cameras to do my own photography, look at the results, do some pixel peeping, and that's it.

This is my opinion based on my experience using different cameras and writing, from a user's point of view, about them. These are my views based on practical aspects mostly concerning with the areas of photography I cover and interest me, and in no way a rule that everybody has to follow. You're free to agree or disagree, that will be your point of view. Hope you enjoy the reading.

My shoulder is sore and my back aches from the days I carried the EOS 1DX around. And having it on my hand for long periods of time has left me with cramps on my fingers. I've experienced this before with other cameras this size: when the test period ends and I return to my little cameras (suddenly they're little) I feel happy, like a traveller that reaches home after a long journey.

Don't misunderstand  me, the Canon EOS 1DX is a great camera... but I wish they would put most of the things it has in a smaller body. In fact Canon did, as the EOS 5D Mark III, that I've already tried, shares features with this new top of the line. But the EOS 5D Mark III has a body not dissimilar from the APS-C cameras like the EOS 7D or EOS 50D, which I prefer... for their price.

I don't want to start a discussion about sensor sizes and all that. It simply does not make sense. If there's choice, there are choosers. And as far as I know, people are - still - free to choose some of the things they use. And buy.  We could stay here all day or night arguing  which sensor size is best, pixel peeping and all. But the true reality is that many people, most of the people I would dare to say, never go beyond the 8x10 inch size... if they ever print. And many people will just share online their pictures. That is the reality. And for that a smaller sensor is good enough, most of the times. And for much more, too!

In fact, I know at least one landscape photographer that has done some  great work and some large prints up to now using just a Canon EOS 40D. That shows that what's really important is not the quantity of pixels but the Eye behind the camera. And if I remember right, we  all started walking this digital path with cameras having fewer pixels and it was great then. Remember?

Now we all know that showing a Canon EOS 1DX to your friends will make them envy you. But carrying 2.96 lb/1340 g (just the body) the whole day will not do much for your health. Unless you're into weight lifting, in which case you should buy two EOS 1DX and use them. Now, really, even the EOS 5D Mark III is light compared to this: it weighs 2.09 lb/950 g. And the camera I want to use here to compare results is even lighter when it comes to weight: 1.26 lb/570 g. The EOS 600D.

Specific tools are to be used by those that need them, and the Canon EOS 1DX is a tool that some professionals will need and use. But does the simple photographer down the road, that just takes pictures for fun, need a full featured camera like this to get results? I don't think so and it is that idea that is the basis for this experiment.

I started shooting early morning and the first images are a good example of what both cameras can do. Remember they both have a 18MP sensor size. That means images, when opened, will have the exact same size in pixels: 5184x3456. So we're talking about images that will give you the same size prints.

Now you tell me that the EOS 600D (I used it because it's one of my cameras) has a smaller size sensor, so it crops part of the image out, and so you do not get equal images. As you can see in the coast line image taken with the EOS 600D, I've managed to resolve that. In fact it's easy. On the EOS 1DX I used a 17-40mm lens and on the EOS 600D I used a 10-20mm lens that on the wider area covers about the same as the 17mm does in a Full Frame body. Let's to the maths: 10mm x 1.6x crop equals 16mmじゅうろくみり. So it's about the same.

This answers, I believe, the complain from those that  say they can not get the same coverage with a smaller sensor... They can if they buy a lens that covers that angle. It is as simple as that.

But I wanted to take this test further, so I used a longer lens, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM on both bodies, to see what I could get from the EOS 600D and the EOS 1DX. As usual, due to the crop, the subject in my final image, if I consider a print size similar for both files, seems closer on the shot taken with the EOS 600D.

Before we get into another discussion that takes us nowhere, remember that the lens is not changing, effectively, when you use a smaller sensor. In this case, it's the same 70-200mm, focusing at exactly the same distance, with the same depth of field a.s.o. What changes is that the area covered by the sensor is small, so if I wanted to get the exact same image with the EOS 600D as I got on the EOS 1DX, with the same lens, I would have to take a few steps back, in order to get the same area in the viewfinder.

Let me say, before we move on, that I never understand the problems some people seem to have with different focal lenghts and the use of APS-C and Full Frame sensors. I come from film days, I used film (mainly transparency) most of my life, since the seventies. I love Full Frame cameras for the open window their viewfinders represent (I have a whole collection of old FD and film EOS cameras, from the old FTb to the EOS 5 with eye-sensor), but I am quite happy with the viewfinders and existing lenses for APS-C cameras. And models like Canon's EOS 7D, that uses the new intelligent viewfinder, show that it is possible, even in APS-C models, to have a bright clear view of the subjects framed. So it's not a matter of sensor size but of the willingness of Canon to use the same technology in all their cameras.

Once you get used to a smaller viewfinder... well, you get used to it. And enjoy it. And you'll discover, then, that the layout of information on the APS-C viewfinder can, sometimes, be more user friendly than on the professional models. On the smaller cameras the compensation scale, for example, is right in front of you, under the values for speed and aperture. On the EOs 1DX the scale is on the right side, as usual in professional models since film days. My old T90 has the scale there.

I guess Canon has not changed it because "pros" don't like change. That is also the reason why professional cameras do not have a flash on top. If they had, they could control external flashes as all DSLR since EOS 7D can... but the professional ones. Many people will say that a small flash on top is the worst thing you can use for your photography.  I agree with them... until the moment when the only available light to show your subject is a tiny little flash on top of your camera. Then, even the humble EOS 600D can do things that a Canon EOs 1DX can not do. You don't believe me?

The image of a decorated gourd shot on my window sill at sunset is a good example. I wanted to show the afternoon light with just a hint of the object in front.  Both cameras can do that perfectly and I just show the shot taken with the EOS 1DX, as they wuld look similar under the same conditions. But if I want to get the decoration on the gourd and the background at the same time, and I do not have an external flash around, I've a problem if I am using the EOS 1DX. With the EOS 1DX I can not get an exposure for both the background and the first plane. But the small flash on top of the EOS 600D, with exposure controlled by me and a napkin folded and placed in front of it to soften the light did the trick.

The example of the decorated gourd just shows that sometimes not having a professional camera will be your best option. And yes, I do know that the EOS 600D can not be as fast as the EOS 1DX: one shoots at 14 fps and the other does 3.7 fps. There are other differences but the essential, in terms of photography and video, is present in the smaller model. More important than the camera, is the mind behind it.

Does this mean that I am preaching you should buy a cheap camera and forget the EOS 1DX? No. Not at all. Go and buy this monster camera from Canon if you need it, not out of vanity. It costs close to $ 7.000 while the EOS 600D, or the newer EOS 650D, can be yours for less than $ 700. Many people DO need a Canon EOS 1DX, it is a fantastic camera, probably one of the most revolutionary things Canon did lately... at least since EOS 7D, I would say. But the truth is that even more people will live happily with smaller, lighter cameras, not as fast, and with smaller sensors.

Any of the recent crop APS-C sensor size cameras will be enough for most photographers. Spend less in gear and more on photographic education. Then you'll understand that you don't need to have much gear to be happy with your photography. That's the reason why I am happy with my EOS 600D, used along my old EOS 50D. I traded the EOS 600D for a Nikon DSLR I won in a competition. I wanted to have video but did not want to spend money at the moment, so it was a good option. You see, I am a slow mover when it comes to buying new gear. I am happy with my EOS 50D and I am waiting for Canon to make an EOS 70D that keeps with tradition. Then I'll move to a new camera. In the mean time I've fun with some BIG models that come my way, for testing. But I am equally happy when they go, because my shoulder and back much prefer my backpack to not have so heavy loads. I am no beast of burden.