1DX Worth the Money?

[bdunbar79]

Who says I don't have lights? That has nothing to do with it. It's not splurging, it's not my job. I invest in memories and do this for my own sake. Stop judging something you know nothing about...

And yeah, in a studio situation , I agree, you shouldn't get a 1d X, the 5d2 will du a killer job. But I don't spend more than an hour a year in studio invironment. I like to take my lights out, and shoot things that move.

I agree that clients would never see the difference, but I know what I can and can't get with those two cameras. In fact I do think there is no comparison between the 1d4 and the 1d X.

I have a very specific wish and personal demand for a camera, and the 1d X is the first camera that really feels like a giant leap there.

People tell me, oh, that's a nice picture, well you should see the 10 moments I didn't catch... that's how I think...

I'm still confused.  What moments aren't you catching?  I've shot basketball with a 5D3 and didn't miss one shot.  What are you shooting?

[Dylan777]

I have both the 1DX and 5D3.  The files from the 1DX are NOT way sharper than the 5D3 and the high ISO noise from both cameras at 25600 are unusable.  So easy to spend someone else's money.  The only reason I bought the 1DX is because yes, it is superior to the 1D4.  But I get paid to shoot sports.  If I didn't get paid to shoot sports, the 5D3/1D4 combo would be MORE than enough for me.

Why would I say something I don't see? It makes no sense. I'm just saying what the differences are, because a lot of people say, meh, it's no difference. Well, that is wrong. And why would it cost twice the money if 4 less mp and a bigger body was all that was between them??

To your defense, I haven't used any other raw-converter than Lightroom 4, and process the 5d3 files in Lr and it is STILL as we talked about when the 5d3 was new, the images aren't as sharp as the 5d2.

If it is the files from the 1d X or if it is MUCH better support in Lr, I don't know, but I have shot 20.000 images with the 5d3 with Reikan calibrated lenses and I haven't gotten one image sharp as I did from the 5d2 or the 1d4. The 1d X is way different, I can apply much less sharpening to get them truly sharp, and overdoing it a tad makes them pop like crazy.

I don't care if people say they are very simmilar. Trying to shoot my kids with the 5d3 was incredibley much easier than with the 1d4, but with the 1d X EVERY shot is perfectly exposed and focused, and I always have the right moment in a burst.

And the perfectly exposed images results in much less rescuing in post which also leads to less noise.

I do agree that you have to be very careful with the 25600 iso, but compare 6400 iso and the 1d is HIGHLY useable and they clean up very nicley, whilst the 5d3 is gritty and ugly. The new lightmetering in the 1d X had a lot more to say than I first thought, as I said, no need to rescue an image, it just sticks.

If that matters to YOU, I have no idea and I don't care, but if it is someone out there who wonders if the 5d3 is the best there is and like me, want to buy the best even if they don't earn that in within 4 months (or at all), the answer is very clear....

If you don't have the money to spend on a 1d X, fine, not all people have it or even remotley close too wanting to spend it. But if you do, don't settle for the 5d3 when you can have an EPIC smilemachine in the 1d X.

I wonder if you can feel the Ferrari's engine when driving down Nathan Road in Hong Kong?

Make no sense to spend extra cash on the features that you do not need. Regardless the out comes on both bodies, PP still needed at the end. My 2cents.

[Viggo]

Things the 5d couldn't catch at f1,2. Try catching the eyeball of a running person up close with the 50 L, and have the right moment, under any circumstance.

Basketball with a 70-200 at 2,8 is different. I don't why people need so bad for me to not need a 1d, I try to offer my advice and thoughts since I've had both and the 5d since April. I am not the only one who likes and wants the 1d over the 5d and feeling it is absolutely worth it. Is it worth it to you?

[bdunbar79]

Things the 5d couldn't catch at f1,2. Try catching the eyeball of a running person up close with the 50 L, and have the right moment, under any circumstance.

Basketball with a 70-200 at 2,8 is different. I don't why people need so bad for me to not need a 1d, I try to offer my advice and thoughts since I've had both and the 5d since April. I am not the only one who likes and wants the 1d over the 5d and feeling it is absolutely worth it. Is it worth it to you?

Everybody wants you to have a 1DX and enjoy it.  What they don't want is to come up for justification of it using shortcomings of the 5D3 which don't really exist.  I'm glad you enjoy your 1DX and are getting great shots from it.  But you don't need to justify it to anyone but you.  You don't have to list shortcomings of the 5D3 to justify the 1DX.  I use each for a specific purpose.  When I do baby pictures or weddings, I'm banking on the 5D3 because I can use the extra 4 mp with they way I crop.  And yes I can notice 22 vs 18.  For sports, however, I leave the 5D3 at home and shoot with the 1DX, because it's way better.  Enjoy it for what you need to do/want to do.  It is nice to hear your perspective since you got rid of the 5D3 for a 1DX.  I kept both for different reasons.

[Bombsight]

It's not a question of it "being worth the money" which, btw, is a stupid question.

Only you can make having or buying a 1DX worth spending the $$$. 

Your question is along the same line as somebody telling a great photographer that his "camera takes good pictures". Tha camera doesnt take pictures, the owner of that camera does.

[awinphoto]

Who says I don't have lights? That has nothing to do with it. It's not splurging, it's not my job. I invest in memories and do this for my own sake. Stop judging something you know nothing about...

And yeah, in a studio situation , I agree, you shouldn't get a 1d X, the 5d2 will du a killer job. But I don't spend more than an hour a year in studio invironment. I like to take my lights out, and shoot things that move.

I agree that clients would never see the difference, but I know what I can and can't get with those two cameras. In fact I do think there is no comparison between the 1d4 and the 1d X.

I have a very specific wish and personal demand for a camera, and the 1d X is the first camera that really feels like a giant leap there.

People tell me, oh, that's a nice picture, well you should see the 10 moments I didn't catch... that's how I think...

Stop judging on what know nothing about?  Are you serious?  I do this stuff for a living... I think i've got a good grasp of the photography industry.  I dont know about your personal taste and spending habit, and frankly between you, neuro and briansquib, i'd love to have your disposable income... unfortunately i've got 2 kids to feed and keep a sucessful business afloat amidst dozens of wanna be photographers crawling all over craigslist offering photography for a song and a dance, and other nation wide photo companies that have the overhead to offer print prices at ridiculously low rates... Money, in the photography business, is vital...  To me the 5d3 purchase was a big purchase, probably the most i spent on any one piece of equipment I've gotten to date, period...  Is the 1dx a better camera, yes, but can it deliver photos I cannot get with the 5d3?  hell no.  Would I make 1 more dime if i got the 1dx over the 5d3?  nope, but I tell ya what, I would be out of business and a hobbyist, just like you.  Stop being so freaking defensive.

Yes, I'm in the business of capturing memories, but unlike you, i'm paid to capture sometimes strangers memories whom i know nothing about.  I dont have the luxury of rapid firing while a bride walks down the isle hoping i get 1 in focus...  If i went that approach I wouldn't have card space to get past the ceremony.  Everyshot is calculated, composed, and done just the way I want it.  Do I get missed shots?  Before the 5d3, constantly... but I'd regroup and make sure I nail the next.  Just shot a wedding recently... Ceremony natural light with ISO's bouncing in the 20,000 range... didn't miss a shot...  The rest was flash and my keeper rate was in the 60-70%, with a lot of the non-keepers being duplicates...  please dont talk down to me like an idiot, I know what I'm talking about... you got a 1dx, good for you... but from my experience, if you cannot get a shot with a lesser camera and you need that top of the line camera to pull it off, it may say more about the photographer and not so much about the camera.   

[Viggo]

Things the 5d couldn't catch at f1,2. Try catching the eyeball of a running person up close with the 50 L, and have the right moment, under any circumstance.

Basketball with a 70-200 at 2,8 is different. I don't why people need so bad for me to not need a 1d, I try to offer my advice and thoughts since I've had both and the 5d since April. I am not the only one who likes and wants the 1d over the 5d and feeling it is absolutely worth it. Is it worth it to you?

Everybody wants you to have a 1DX and enjoy it.  What they don't want is to come up for justification of it using shortcomings of the 5D3 which don't really exist.  I'm glad you enjoy your 1DX and are getting great shots from it.  But you don't need to justify it to anyone but you.  You don't have to list shortcomings of the 5D3 to justify the 1DX.  I use each for a specific purpose.  When I do baby pictures or weddings, I'm banking on the 5D3 because I can use the extra 4 mp with they way I crop.  And yes I can notice 22 vs 18.  For sports, however, I leave the 5D3 at home and shoot with the 1DX, because it's way better.  Enjoy it for what you need to do/want to do.  It is nice to hear your perspective since you got rid of the 5D3 for a 1DX.  I kept both for different reasons.

The OP asked about if it's worth the money, and yes it is. And for me to just say yes, would prompt someone to ask, why, what's better?

And that's what I did.

But fair enough. We have different needs and style. I also shoot a lot of kids, and I don't need to crop there, I would crop for sports, so there's one difference. And nothing wrong with either.

This is why Canon make the 1100d and the 600d (and the 650d was just to show you how black rubber can turn white, apparently and the 5d's and the 1d's. We all now the same thing here. There's good reason why they make all of them. Different needs and wants.

And we can argue until we are blue in the face of which one is better. I have friends who use the first 5d, because it has better edge sharpness than enay other camera on the planet. I'm not getting into that, I'll just take it for what is, and argument for or against something and make up my own mind.

*shakehands* bdunbar79

[Viggo]

Who says I don't have lights? That has nothing to do with it. It's not splurging, it's not my job. I invest in memories and do this for my own sake. Stop judging something you know nothing about...

And yeah, in a studio situation , I agree, you shouldn't get a 1d X, the 5d2 will du a killer job. But I don't spend more than an hour a year in studio invironment. I like to take my lights out, and shoot things that move.

I agree that clients would never see the difference, but I know what I can and can't get with those two cameras. In fact I do think there is no comparison between the 1d4 and the 1d X.

I have a very specific wish and personal demand for a camera, and the 1d X is the first camera that really feels like a giant leap there.

People tell me, oh, that's a nice picture, well you should see the 10 moments I didn't catch... that's how I think...

Stop judging on what know nothing about?  Are you serious?  I do this stuff for a living... I think i've got a good grasp of the photography industry.  I dont know about your personal taste and spending habit, and frankly between you, neuro and briansquib, i'd love to have your disposable income... unfortunately i've got 2 kids to feed and keep a sucessful business afloat amidst dozens of wanna be photographers crawling all over craigslist offering photography for a song and a dance, and other nation wide photo companies that have the overhead to offer print prices at ridiculously low rates... Money, in the photography business, is vital...  To me the 5d3 purchase was a big purchase, probably the most i spent on any one piece of equipment I've gotten to date, period...  Is the 1dx a better camera, yes, but can it deliver photos I cannot get with the 5d3?  hell no.  Would I make 1 more dime if i got the 1dx over the 5d3?  nope, but I tell ya what, I would be out of business and a hobbyist, just like you.  Stop being so freaking defensive.

Yes, I'm in the business of capturing memories, but unlike you, i'm paid to capture sometimes strangers memories whom i know nothing about.  I dont have the luxury of rapid firing while a bride walks down the isle hoping i get 1 in focus...  If i went that approach I wouldn't have card space to get past the ceremony.  Everyshot is calculated, composed, and done just the way I want it.  Do I get missed shots?  Before the 5d3, constantly... but I'd regroup and make sure I nail the next.  Just shot a wedding recently... Ceremony natural light with ISO's bouncing in the 20,000 range... didn't miss a shot...  The rest was flash and my keeper rate was in the 60-70%, with a lot of the non-keepers being duplicates...  please dont talk down to me like an idiot, I know what I'm talking about... you got a 1dx, good for you... but from my experience, if you cannot get a shot with a lesser camera and you need that top of the line camera to pull it off, it may say more about the photographer and not so much about the camera.   

Yes I am serious!

You wanna hear my story? I just moved 6 hours from where I have lived all my life. I have a 3yr old boy and a 9 month old daughter, we bought a house, we don't have jobs. Guess what, that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with this. My income? That doesn't matter. I am a dedicated saver by nature. I bought a t-shirt in 2006, my newest piece of clothing. I eat water. That's how I can afford what I want. Including the 1d X. None of this matter at all.

You might know about photography business, which I never claimed nor am a part of.

"if you cannot get a shot with a lesser camera and you need that top of the line camera to pull it off, it may say more about the photographer and not so much about the camera"

Then why are you using a 5d3 and not a Canonet QL17?

And please tell this to the sports photogs who shot in the Olympics and others that depend on great gear to perform what they want and/or need.

[bdunbar79]

Things the 5d couldn't catch at f1,2. Try catching the eyeball of a running person up close with the 50 L, and have the right moment, under any circumstance.

Basketball with a 70-200 at 2,8 is different. I don't why people need so bad for me to not need a 1d, I try to offer my advice and thoughts since I've had both and the 5d since April. I am not the only one who likes and wants the 1d over the 5d and feeling it is absolutely worth it. Is it worth it to you?

Everybody wants you to have a 1DX and enjoy it.  What they don't want is to come up for justification of it using shortcomings of the 5D3 which don't really exist.  I'm glad you enjoy your 1DX and are getting great shots from it.  But you don't need to justify it to anyone but you.  You don't have to list shortcomings of the 5D3 to justify the 1DX.  I use each for a specific purpose.  When I do baby pictures or weddings, I'm banking on the 5D3 because I can use the extra 4 mp with they way I crop.  And yes I can notice 22 vs 18.  For sports, however, I leave the 5D3 at home and shoot with the 1DX, because it's way better.  Enjoy it for what you need to do/want to do.  It is nice to hear your perspective since you got rid of the 5D3 for a 1DX.  I kept both for different reasons.

The OP asked about if it's worth the money, and yes it is. And for me to just say yes, would prompt someone to ask, why, what's better?

And that's what I did.

But fair enough. We have different needs and style. I also shoot a lot of kids, and I don't need to crop there, I would crop for sports, so there's one difference. And nothing wrong with either.

This is why Canon make the 1100d and the 600d (and the 650d was just to show you how black rubber can turn white, apparently and the 5d's and the 1d's. We all now the same thing here. There's good reason why they make all of them. Different needs and wants.

And we can argue until we are blue in the face of which one is better. I have friends who use the first 5d, because it has better edge sharpness than enay other camera on the planet. I'm not getting into that, I'll just take it for what is, and argument for or against something and make up my own mind.

*shakehands* bdunbar79

You got it.  Hey, I agree it was worth the money.  I bought one didn't I? 

[DMITPHOTO]

Well, interesting conversations. My whole point to this when I asked "is it worth the money", not meaning should I go spend 7 grand on a camera, but meaning are the features the 1dx offers worth the $7,000 price tag. And from what people have posted, it seems like if your using a professional level camera, it's amazing. For my needs of what I'm wanting a camera to do, the 1dx might be a tad over kill when a mark4 would work just fine, but I use the 5d3 for landscape nature portraits, anything that the more pixels the better. And I use the 60D for mainly just macro and or will attach a 70-200 or the 500 being its not full frame. But shooting wildlife and sports, the 5d3 just isn't as fast as I wish it could be fps wise. The auto focus is snappy and will lock on, and 6fps isn't to shabby, but just isn't fast enough to capture small birds in flight or more of a moment happening in some sport. I do make a little money selling wildlife prints and things to do with sporting stuff, but I figured id be getting a used mark4 unless there's some place that has it new, but new is $5,000, and used range from 3-4,500. So I figure I'd be using the camera a lot I'd want something it be worth the price and last. Which the 1dx will do. Lol but this thread turned into something different so I guess I should've phrased my question better instead of being so vague.

[awinphoto]

Well, interesting conversations. My whole point to this when I asked "is it worth the money", not meaning should I go spend 7 grand on a camera, but meaning are the features the 1dx offers worth the $7,000 price tag. And from what people have posted, it seems like if your using a professional level camera, it's amazing. For my needs of what I'm wanting a camera to do, the 1dx might be a tad over kill when a mark4 would work just fine, but I use the 5d3 for landscape nature portraits, anything that the more pixels the better. And I use the 60D for mainly just macro and or will attach a 70-200 or the 500 being its not full frame. But shooting wildlife and sports, the 5d3 just isn't as fast as I wish it could be fps wise. The auto focus is snappy and will lock on, and 6fps isn't to shabby, but just isn't fast enough to capture small birds in flight or more of a moment happening in some sport. I do make a little money selling wildlife prints and things to do with sporting stuff, but I figured id be getting a used mark4 unless there's some place that has it new, but new is $5,000, and used range from 3-4,500. So I figure I'd be using the camera a lot I'd want something it be worth the price and last. Which the 1dx will do. Lol but this thread turned into something different so I guess I should've phrased my question better instead of being so vague.

As i mentioned in my posts, if your pushing the limits of your gear and you need to upgrade, by all means...  Is the 1dx worth the $2k more than the 1d4...  I dont know quite what to say...  part of me says you get full frame which may or may not be beneficial to bird and sports photography with no crop, but you get killer ISO, a better AF, and a more enhances ergonomics and feature set...  as one person said, the 5d3 and a 1d4 is a killer combo...  but then again a cropped down 18MP full frame image to match the crop of 1.3, and then uprez'd from there to match the resolution of the 18MP of the 1d4...  I guess to me whatever file is cleaner then would win my money if I was in the market to buy one. 

[awinphoto]

Yes I am serious!

You wanna hear my story? I just moved 6 hours from where I have lived all my life. I have a 3yr old boy and a 9 month old daughter, we bought a house, we don't have jobs. Guess what, that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with this. My income? That doesn't matter. I am a dedicated saver by nature. I bought a t-shirt in 2006, my newest piece of clothing. I eat water. That's how I can afford what I want. Including the 1d X. None of this matter at all.

You might know about photography business, which I never claimed nor am a part of.

"if you cannot get a shot with a lesser camera and you need that top of the line camera to pull it off, it may say more about the photographer and not so much about the camera"

Then why are you using a 5d3 and not a Canonet QL17?

And please tell this to the sports photogs who shot in the Olympics and others that depend on great gear to perform what they want and/or need.

I am shooting with the 5d3 as per my principle of upgrading when i've outgrown my cameras... and this is where I am at.  I've shot with the D60's, 10D's, 30D's, film rebels, medium format 645's and 2.25 squares, 4x5's...  i've shot when each frame, each click of the shutter cost me money, and I had to make sure I made every shot count...  Frankly as I said before, we are spoiled to have such great cameras and have no expense of film...  If you feel the need to burst through 1000 pictures at a wedding or more... go ahead...  It is what it is...  You say the 1dx is the best camera for your money and it's worth it and I pointed out much more important tools to enhance your toolkit (from a professionals point of view) and you jumped all over me. 

Your story is great and I hope you are raising your kids with no sacrifices with your camera addiction.  I know just like you do how expensive they are, hence I dont get all the gear I would love...  I make due with what I need to get by jobs... when I get a job which justifies new gear, that, to me, is the only time i'm allowed to splurge on camera gear...  I nailed a large contract recently with Union Pacific... I got a new strobe kit...  As i said, i could save every penny and live on top ramon and do whatever to skimp and get the 1dx's and the TS lenses and so on and so forth, but in the end, it's just not worth it...  I've gone to some of these seminars taught by some of the top pro's in the photography industry... Some larger than others, all with larger paychecks than my own, and only a small percentage use 1d series cameras even though to them it would be chump change..  To me, that tells me that in the right hands, there's nothing a 1d camera can do that a 5d or lesser camera cant do. 

There is a point where a 1d body is necessary, and I'm not claiming the contrary...  Sports Photogs, photojournalists, photogs out in the elements where another camera would be toast...  but by any means, it isn't the end all to be all.  You shoot your camera, I shoot my camera... lets meet up one day to compare images. 

[Viggo]

Well, interesting conversations. My whole point to this when I asked "is it worth the money", not meaning should I go spend 7 grand on a camera, but meaning are the features the 1dx offers worth the $7,000 price tag. And from what people have posted, it seems like if your using a professional level camera, it's amazing. For my needs of what I'm wanting a camera to do, the 1dx might be a tad over kill when a mark4 would work just fine, but I use the 5d3 for landscape nature portraits, anything that the more pixels the better. And I use the 60D for mainly just macro and or will attach a 70-200 or the 500 being its not full frame. But shooting wildlife and sports, the 5d3 just isn't as fast as I wish it could be fps wise. The auto focus is snappy and will lock on, and 6fps isn't to shabby, but just isn't fast enough to capture small birds in flight or more of a moment happening in some sport. I do make a little money selling wildlife prints and things to do with sporting stuff, but I figured id be getting a used mark4 unless there's some place that has it new, but new is $5,000, and used range from 3-4,500. So I figure I'd be using the camera a lot I'd want something it be worth the price and last. Which the 1dx will do. Lol but this thread turned into something different so I guess I should've phrased my question better instead of being so vague.

Yeah, things went off course a tad

I think a used 1d4 will be a great value for money. I loved that camera, the only problem with it as far as I'm concerned, was the lower light tracking abillities. And that was because I had high expectations coming from a huge let down with an early 1d3 and the 1d4, new, was very expensive too.

But it had everything you expect from a 1d and is a real joy to use! And a better placement and feel of the ISO button than the 1d X

[DMITPHOTO]

Yes I am serious!

You wanna hear my story? I just moved 6 hours from where I have lived all my life. I have a 3yr old boy and a 9 month old daughter, we bought a house, we don't have jobs. Guess what, that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with this. My income? That doesn't matter. I am a dedicated saver by nature. I bought a t-shirt in 2006, my newest piece of clothing. I eat water. That's how I can afford what I want. Including the 1d X. None of this matter at all.

You might know about photography business, which I never claimed nor am a part of.

"if you cannot get a shot with a lesser camera and you need that top of the line camera to pull it off, it may say more about the photographer and not so much about the camera"

Then why are you using a 5d3 and not a Canonet QL17?

And please tell this to the sports photogs who shot in the Olympics and others that depend on great gear to perform what they want and/or need.

I am shooting with the 5d3 as per my principle of upgrading when i've outgrown my cameras... and this is where I am at.  I've shot with the D60's, 10D's, 30D's, film rebels, medium format 645's and 2.25 squares, 4x5's...  i've shot when each frame, each click of the shutter cost me money, and I had to make sure I made every shot count...  Frankly as I said before, we are spoiled to have such great cameras and have no expense of film...  If you feel the need to burst through 1000 pictures at a wedding or more... go ahead...  It is what it is...  You say the 1dx is the best camera for your money and it's worth it and I pointed out much more important tools to enhance your toolkit (from a professionals point of view) and you jumped all over me. 

Your story is great and I hope you are raising your kids with no sacrifices with your camera addiction.  I know just like you do how expensive they are, hence I dont get all the gear I would love...  I make due with what I need to get by jobs... when I get a job which justifies new gear, that, to me, is the only time i'm allowed to splurge on camera gear...  I nailed a large contract recently with Union Pacific... I got a new strobe kit...  As i said, i could save every penny and live on top ramon and do whatever to skimp and get the 1dx's and the TS lenses and so on and so forth, but in the end, it's just not worth it...  I've gone to some of these seminars taught by some of the top pro's in the photography industry... Some larger than others, all with larger paychecks than my own, and only a small percentage use 1d series cameras even though to them it would be chump change..  To me, that tells me that in the right hands, there's nothing a 1d camera can do that a 5d or lesser camera cant do. 

There is a point where a 1d body is necessary, and I'm not claiming the contrary...  Sports Photogs, photojournalists, photogs out in the elements where another camera would be toast...  but by any means, it isn't the end all to be all.  You shoot your camera, I shoot my camera... lets meet up one day to compare images.

I think your spot on as far as the photographer makes the picture not the camera. I hate photoshop and lightroom and always try to not edit photos except for exposure and crop, the simple stuff. I started with an old AE1 with just a 50mm, and sad to say I rarely use it anymore because it cost 25$ just to get the film developed to digital. And we are spoiled with high fps and if we dont like a shot just delete it. Had a rebel and upgraded to a 60D and then got the 5d mark iii. And when you compare a 60D to a 5D3 image, sadly there is no comparison. The 5d3's pixels, clarity, color just straight out of the camera raw is amazing. The 1dx all around is prolly a better camera than the 5d3, but really for me it just has the higher fps. sure, the autofocus, iso etc may be better than the fd3, but the price tag it really high lol. From what people have posted and ive read, for now itd prolly be better to stick with a 1d4, 1d3 or even just a 7d. Its just those darn Craigslist photographers lol ruining everything

[DMITPHOTO]

Well, interesting conversations. My whole point to this when I asked "is it worth the money", not meaning should I go spend 7 grand on a camera, but meaning are the features the 1dx offers worth the $7,000 price tag. And from what people have posted, it seems like if your using a professional level camera, it's amazing. For my needs of what I'm wanting a camera to do, the 1dx might be a tad over kill when a mark4 would work just fine, but I use the 5d3 for landscape nature portraits, anything that the more pixels the better. And I use the 60D for mainly just macro and or will attach a 70-200 or the 500 being its not full frame. But shooting wildlife and sports, the 5d3 just isn't as fast as I wish it could be fps wise. The auto focus is snappy and will lock on, and 6fps isn't to shabby, but just isn't fast enough to capture small birds in flight or more of a moment happening in some sport. I do make a little money selling wildlife prints and things to do with sporting stuff, but I figured id be getting a used mark4 unless there's some place that has it new, but new is $5,000, and used range from 3-4,500. So I figure I'd be using the camera a lot I'd want something it be worth the price and last. Which the 1dx will do. Lol but this thread turned into something different so I guess I should've phrased my question better instead of being so vague.

Yeah, things went off course a tad

I think a used 1d4 will be a great value for money. I loved that camera, the only problem with it as far as I'm concerned, was the lower light tracking abillities. And that was because I had high expectations coming from a huge let down with an early 1d3 and the 1d4, new, was very expensive too.

But it had everything you expect from a 1d and is a real joy to use! And a better placement and feel of the ISO button than the 1d X

Think I shall wait on the greatest canon camera atm haha and stick with an older 1dmark3/4 or 7d