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.
Yes, that is what I meant - I am fully aware that me with a 1DX would never shoot pictures as amazing as some pros do with much less sophisticated equipment. And it is certainly also true that not everything I could afford would make a value for me.
I guess my comparison with the iPhone was a bit silly - but I was trying to avoid the classic "VW vs. Ferrari"... But you get what I mean; when I first used the 300/2.8 (being the first time I was using one of the white primes) I really did feel that everything I had been using until then was cheap. But of course, "cheap" is at a very high level here. I started buying L-glass after having used a Tamron 28-300 (I think) on a 500D for a while and always being frustrated because the pictures never seemed focused. This is when I got the 24-70, and then also the 7D. While of course my qualities as a photographer did not change at all, it gave me way more pleasure looking at these pics than the one with the old combo. And then, when I mounted the 300/2.8 I had the impression that the difference in terms of sharpness and colors was again the same as with the first switch. That is basically what I meant when I mentioned the iPhone.
What you say about the 1DX and my lust for it is precisely it. I realize that the 5Diii delivers everything I need and then some, and the 10% extra from the 1DX would just be because it is cool. No, I don't need it. But then again, since I am not a pro I would not need any camera at all. I also still have a Canon F1 in a cabinet somewhere that I could use, and maybe the pictures would come out the same as with the 5Diii (even though I would have a hard time getting the pics developed, or taking any at ISO51k...
). And for the same reason - pro vs. amateur - I can to some extent adjust what I take pictures of to the amount of gear that I want to lug around, rather than the other way around.
Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts/reasonings. I will get a 5Diii now and keep on renting the 300/2.8.
And maybe donate some to charity - after all, my wife also has all she needs