« on: July 10, 2012, 07:02:54 PM »
I have two 5D Mark III's that I use extensively. I print big pictures for people and I can tell the difference between 22mp and 18mp. The 5D3 performs superbly at high ISO's, whereas the 1Ds III didn't. The autofocus is very fast.
I also am buying the 1D X. Why? Well, shooting indoor basktball with my 1D Mark IV makes it very difficult to shoot at ISO 3200 and 6400 without a lot of post-processing NR. I need that feature, because I waste a lot of time applying NR. Imagine getting pressure to jpeg your photos to your laptop and then send them on. I can do that hopefully with the 1D X with no or minimal NR processing. Obviously the shutter lag and fps is superior to the 1D 4.
So both cameras fit my needs. I won't use my 1D X at weddings believe it or not; I'll be taking my two 5D Mark III's because it can perform at a high enough ISO for me and has more resolution. The 1D X is going to all sports/action with 1D 4 for backup. Why not the 5D3 for backup at sports you may ask? 5D 3 doesn't have spot metering at active AF point which is very, very useful during sports believe it or not. It can make the difference between a properly exposed player vs. silhoutted player.
As you can see, they both have strengths and weaknesses. Is the 1D X really worth $6800? Well, I don't know, but remember the 1Ds III in 2007 retailed for $7999. Even worse, so did the 1Ds II in 2005! So yes it probably is worth it.
BOTH cameras will do AUTO ISO in full manual mode. I believe the 1D X will let you shoot in Av mode, minimum shutter speed, auto ISO, and access to exposure compensation, all 4. I've tried that on my 1D Mark IV so there are advantages to 1D bodies.