No your ok I have a pretty good job doing what I love
I would agree with the above.
Travel is the only thing you can do that makes you richer. The camera you have with you is always the best camera.
In this case I would be against the 1Dx and the 300/400mm because they are both niche products and a pain in the ass to carry around. 5DMKIII and the 100-400 would make a better option but still a pain for traveling.
Really the usability of 300/400mm lenses are best suited for sports and birding/wildlife. If thats your main use then ye.
I think a good compromise is the 70-200mm F2.8 MKII With a 2x extender if you are traveling around. Thats what I use but the MKI non IS lens. IQ is not stellar but more than useable on my 5DMKIII
You would have a lot of money left over and still an incredible kit.
Apart from my Camera equipment my other passion is cars and BMW M cars are my poison otherwise I would have many more exotic lenses
I guess more importantly the camera is always only as good as the person behind it... (and I am not a 1DX )
But I actually found that the 300/2.8 is an incredible lens also for "macro" type photography (wild flowers, and bugs, mostly). Nevertheless, it certainly is not suitable as an always-on...
I must say that since I have used the 300 I am always a bit disappointed when taking a picture with the 70-200 (IS, mark I). I guess I have tasted the honey and can not let go anymore... The funny thing is that when I first rented it my reasoning was simply to see what justifies that kind of price. I believed that it is sufficiently expensive (and expected a difference sufficiently small) to never really make me consider buying it... boy was I wrong!! Most people here probably know this, but I felt like the photos from the zoom lens were taken with an iPhone (well, not quite... but almost).
I can see how BMW M are poison (that tastes good)... In that respect I am happy since cars I would be passionate about (basically Mercedes from the early 70s and before, or electric sports cars...) are so totally out of range for me that I just stick with my 15 year old volvo
Ye but you give a pro a 300D and he will make incredible pictures with it. What I meant was the best camera is the one you have with you as in being comfortable carrying and using it. Getting the shot is more important IMO. everything is a compromise and just because you can afford to doesn't necessarily make it a good value purchase for you. But then again life is short so do it while you can on the flip side.
Many pros work in this way, unless you are a sports or wildlife shooter it is cheaper to rent for when you need. I understand that shooting with the white primes is better but comparing the zooms to point and shoots just isnt correct. Although the MKI 70-200mm IS is the least sharp of the 2.8 70-200mm zooms its still a quality piece of glass. But the 24-70 MKII and the 70-200 MKII have many a time been comparable or better than their prime equivalents.
Again same with the 1DX it is more than twice the price of the 5DMKIII but the 5DMKIII is 90% of the camera. 6fps is nothing to be sniffed at either, 14 is incredible but in most situations overkill. As a gear head and lover of new tech I completely understand the want but what about the need? IMO the 5DMKIII is the best all round camera ever made and it surprises me everyday. Again it is a lot more useable and easier to travel with than the beast 1DX.
As a pro weight is a huge concern, with having two bodies and lenses that cover a broad range lugging it around can juts be inconvenient. But that is my personal preference.
If the best is all you can have then go for it, but there are other options that will create a similar result but cost a weigh a lot less.