neuro, based on the few reviews you've seen, the spec sheet, etc, do you think the 1D X is really worth the extra money over the 5D3? I'm just looking for your straight-up opinions on this, since I know you skipped the 5D3 in favor of the 1D X.
For me, yes. The weather sealing and built-in grip are important to me, as is the frame rate, and I'm hoping for a bit better high-ISO performance. I think the face-tracking in the phase AF will be useful, too. I do tend to treat my cameras as tools not showpieces, and the 1-series build will hold up better to that treatment.
But it comes down to 'value', and there are two parts to that - what are the features worth, and can you afford it? Photography is a hobby for me...in that sense, I don't need a 1D X. But I want one, and I can afford one, so I'm getting one.
+1 (and for pretty much exactly the same reasons)
+1 here too (and for the exact same reasons)
There are also little features that aren't mentioned in all the spec sheets which is why my main body is always going to be a pro series camera such as voice memos which I use all the time. Also dual CF slots, built in grip, more durable shutter (I shoot 100,000 frames a year these days), and once you start shooting 10 fps or better it will be hard to turn back down to 6 which now seems incredibly slow. Working as a journalist, I tend to shoot a lot of photos out in the rain and I have to be careful with my 5D MK II, but I don't mind if my 1D MK IV gets soaking wet with a weather sealed pro lens such as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. I'm one of those guys who loves to shoot in the rain but this also means that the sun will most likely be behind some dark clouds so you gotta boost your ISO over 2000 to stop basic movement.
The 5D MK III looks like it has improved weather sealing and I'm sure it would hold up just fine in a light rain but the high-ISO samples I have seen aren't anywhere near what the samples from the 1DX look like. High school gyms can be pretty dark, I push my 1D MK IV to ISO 8000 just to get a shutter speed of 1/400 sec at f/2.8. That is as far as I am willing to go for a photo that will be ran in the newspaper but with the 1DX I should be able to get a much better image even at ISO 25,000 and a shutter speed closer to my preferred 1/1000 for sports.
The 5D MK III didn't look all that great at ISO 8000 so I skipped that body. Megapixels don't really matter, the Associated Press actually makes us size the file to max dimensions of 2000 x 2000 pixels and around 1.5mb to keep their system from overloading. Sure, more pixels means that we can crop more but I would rather have cleaner images at super high ISOs.
Here's a blog post from a while back using the 1D4 and 5D MK II for a fire at night. Things get grainy at ISO 8000 with the 1D4 so this will definitely be an area of focus for a lot of journalists out there.http://markwebbphoto.com/blog/2012/3/shooting-breaking-news-stories-
As for those who do this as a hobby, I can't imagine you spending almost $7K on a body. The 5D3 should be good enough for you especially if you travel around a lot. But if you have the money then you should consider buying one for me too because I have been saving for a year to get a 1DX.