Should I buy a 5D3 or 1D4?

[thure1982]

What's your input?
Money isn't an issue since I've been saving for some time.

[neuroanatomist]

What do you shoot, and in what conditions?

[thure1982]

What do you shoot, and in what conditions?

Everything and nothing so to speak, from weddings to Moto-GP at the track.
I'm not such a novice that I must have high fps to get the picture at the track.

My current body is a 40D an that suits me great except low light without flash and that it is a crop-sensor and I'm looking forward to a bigger sensor.

I have the following lenses.
24-105, 70-200/2,8 IS II, 16-35 II

[Viggo]

I find the AF of the 5d3 WAAAY better than the mk4. And almost all, I would say 90%, of what I loved about the 1-series they have now put into the 5d3. So I'm seriously considering if I want the 1d X still, the small body and the light weight of the 5d is very appealing.

[neuroanatomist]

In that case, I'd say go with the 5DIII unless you absolutely need the better build and sealing of the 1-series (which, since you shoot with a 40D successfully, I'd say you probably don't).

[Tcapp]

In that case, I'd say go with the 5DIII unless you absolutely need the better build and sealing of the 1-series (which, since you shoot with a 40D successfully, I'd say you probably don't).

Agreed. 100%.

[rlarsen]

Compare the specs.
If your work will benefit from a faster motor drive and a more rugged body, use the MK lV.
Both have great AF systems that come with a learning curve.
Also consider weight, flash sync-speed, and quiet shooting modes on the 5D.
Budget your money for quality lenses.

[briansquibb]

I understand your dilema - they are both great cameras from an IQ and an AF point of view.

However the series 1 features that are not on the 5DIII might be important:

- if you shoot a lot in portrait mode then you will have to budget for grips for the 5DIII (are they available yet?)
- if you shoot a lot in portrait mode then you might find the button placements not the best around
- series 1 have have the AF point linked to the metering, the 5DIII is the centre point
- series 1 are able to select multiple AF points for metering
- series 1 have the ability to shoot in manual mode with EC( using AV and other settings - it is fabulous for action pictures)
- no dial to knock and get changed without you realising it
- far better weather and dust sealing
- long battery life means that you will need grips on the 5DIII to get (about) the same number of shots before changing

Then of course there are the headline differences

1D4 - more fps, F8 focussing

5DIII - more mps, better very low light performance, better video

[thure1982]

Thanks for the input.
I've been holding out for the 5D3 if it was awesome, which it seems to be.
This is a hard one.

[smirkypants]

You might want to consider that if you shoot at a distance a lot you get further reach with the 1D4. Essentially you get a "free" 1.4 teleconverter with no loss of image quality or stops of light. Additionally, if you want to add a 2x teleconverter to an f4 lens or a 1.4x teleconverter to an f5.6 lens, you won't be able to autofocus on a 5D3 because it chokes at f8.

If you don't plan to shoot at a distance, this is all irrelevant. I'd almost certainly choose a 5D3 for portrait, events and landscape work. There are NO ultrawide lenses for the 1D4. It can't be done.

[tomscott]

The APH format is awkward for normal shooting tho. If you are used to shooting on standard lenses then they won't be as wide won't be able to go extra wide like a FF camera or even if you are using a 10-22mm on the 40D the FF equivalent won't seem wide. But I suppose you could get used to it. Although good for extra length which is what it was designed for it is not the overall camera I was looking for especially for wedding photography when your in those tight spaces, also the 5D MKIII ISO range is useable from 1600-6400 a wedding photographers dream! FF all the way, be nice to use one of these as a second camera. Albeit an expensive one.

5D MKIII All the way its what I'm getting )!

Ive been looking at this too but on another recent thread 5D MKIII VS 1Ds MKIII

[sanyasi]

I'd buy the new technology.  I am largely unfamiliar with the 1D4, so my take will be uninformed, but stay with me.  I received my 5D, Mark III on Monday of this past week.  Aside from my desktop, I haven't taken a photograph yet.  I've spent considerable time reading the instructions, articles in the Canon Knowledgebase and even my old Magic Lantern book for the 5D, Mark II.

For my money, the vastly improved menu system is worth the price of the 5D Mark III.  I now feel much more in control of the camera, which in part is why I am rereading basic information about some of the features that continue from the II to III.

But there are other things to consider: the new technology.  Your getting their Digic 5 processor, albeit only one.  I certainly am not an computer engineer, but after 25 years of dealing with computers, I know that four or five years is a long time in the tech world.  Setting aside the debate about image quality (which I think will not be resolved for at least a year and is pretty pointless to begin with), I have to believe you are better off with the new processor.

You say you do shoot some sports.  Much of my reading has been about the AF system.  Once again, the menu system and onboard help system makes this pretty easy to use.  Granted the pencils on my desk don't move like basketball players, but now that I understand the system, I am anxious to give it a try.  If it is half of what I am expecting, it will be fantastic.

You should get better ISO performance.  My understanding is that the weather sealing is not 1DX quality, but from what I gather, it is improved.  The camera certainly feels more solid.  The 6fps is more than I need.  I suppose if you are covering NFL football 10fps would be an advantage.

I'd also add:  I gave consideration to the new 1DX and asked my dealer if I could hold a EOS 1D Mark III.  That was the deciding factor.  It was really much heavier--raising camera shake issues.  I am used to lugging around the 5D, Mark II with the 70-200 lens for ten or 12 hours at a time, so weight isn't a problem for me, but the Mark III's weight and bulk were noticeable--and that was without a lens attached.  As my dealer said, unless you are covering the war in dusty Afghanistan or shooting in a South American rain forest for weeks on end, the new 1DX is overkill.

Good luck with the decision.

[briansquibb]

I'd buy the new technology.  I am largely unfamiliar with the 1D4, so my take will be uninformed, but stay with me.

well there is the first problem

But there are other things to consider: the new technology.  Your getting their Digic 5 processor, albeit only one.  I certainly am not an computer engineer, but after 25 years of dealing with computers, I know that four or five years is a long time in the tech world. 

there is the second - the 1D4 is not even 2-1/2 years old

Setting aside the debate about image quality (which I think will not be resolved for at least a year and is pretty pointless to begin with), I have to believe you are better off with the new processor.

Better than 2 Digic 4's - on what basis will that affect the camera?

You say you do shoot some sports.  Much of my reading has been about the AF system.  Once again, the menu system and onboard help system makes this pretty easy to use.  Granted the pencils on my desk don't move like basketball players, but now that I understand the system, I am anxious to give it a try.  If it is half of what I am expecting, it will be fantastic.

... but better than the 1D4? The 1D4 is not exactly lacking in this area

You should get better ISO performance. 

From experience I dont believe there will be any significant difference. The 5DIII might focus better in very low light

My understanding is that the weather sealing is not 1DX quality, but from what I gather, it is improved.  The camera certainly feels more solid.  The 6fps is more than I need.  I suppose if you are covering NFL football 10fps would be an advantage.

Definitely

I'd also add:  I gave consideration to the new 1DX and asked my dealer if I could hold a EOS 1D Mark III.  That was the deciding factor.  It was really much heavier--raising camera shake issues.  I am used to lugging around the 5D, Mark II with the 70-200 lens for ten or 12 hours at a time, so weight isn't a problem for me, but the Mark III's weight and bulk were noticeable--and that was without a lens attached.  As my dealer said, unless you are covering the war in dusty Afghanistan or shooting in a South American rain forest for weeks on end, the new 1DX is overkill.

Weight of the equipment varies from person to person.

I would have no problem with a 1D4 and 70-200 f/2.8 II all day - in fact I normally do plus the 1Ds3 and a 400/f/2.8

Dont listen to your dealer when he sniffs a possible sale

[Dylan777]

I never own 1D series before, so I can't speak for it. However, the new 5D III is an amazing machine. The new AF is AWESOME, fast. Day and night different between  mrk II & III in term of AF and other features.

my 50mm f1.4 and 70-200 lenses are now my favorite with 5D III. I'm going to sell my 24-105 and get the new 24-70 II.

[dilbert]

What's your input?
Money isn't an issue since I've been saving for some time.

If you don't know which of the two to buy then you should be neither.

Why?

Because you don't understand your photography well enough to know what you actually need.

These cameras are so different that anyone that needs a 1D4 simply wouldn't consider a 5D3.